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: 48
16
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
For the life of me, I can't understand your train of thought and logic. This has been stated ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and others: NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE.

The bolded part makes perfect sense to me and is quite reasonable. However, you ignoring the fact/reality as mentioned below is not that reasonable (I still understand why you're doing that, so I can't quite say that it makes no sense to me or that I don't understand your train of thought and logic).

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” (New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.)

So, switch to "the tree of life" is not the same as "the theory of evolution"? So it's irrelevant that: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality”? Modern evolutionary synthesis is still true/factual? Ever heard of a red herring? "no evidence at all" is the keypoint here, not that he's only talking about "the tree of life" (which does represent the main philosophy that holds the other evolutionary philosophies together; it lies at the heart of Darwin's attempt to make his mythology sound more convincing; one can ask themselves if his mythology would have ever gotten of the ground without it; the same counts for making evolutionary processes gradual, and not jerky as in the storyline involving the beguiling term "punctuated equilibrium"). If there is "no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality" why is "the tree of life" (whichever variation some people prefer, cause there are many versions of it) still taught in schools and universities across the globe? The bible explains that behaviour quite well.

2 Timothy 4:3,4

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the beneficial* teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories*.

1st *: Or “healthful; wholesome.”
2nd *: Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”
3rd *: Greek: myʹthos; KJV: myths

It markets well because it's what people want to believe (think is the case). It's what they want to hear. Bias, wishful thinking or as a prominent influential evolutionary philosopher and teacher once admitted "wishful speculations" and another said as quoted before regarding lining up fossils in an evolutionary storyline of common descent: "a bedtime story, amusing....but not scientific".
Quotation about "wishful speculations" after 30:09:

Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto

Just keep on sticking your head in the sand regarding the real evidence from biology, archaeology, anthropology, genetics, etc. (as partly discussed in my comment at the top of the previous page and in the presentation above). See what wonders it does for the mythology you adhere to when people can see the acknowledgements by the people working in these fields themselves and use their reason and thinking abilities to determin its relevance to evolutionary philosophies that include statements or philosophies about what's called (but not always spelled out in the storyline) "common descent" or what evolutionary storyline marketeers themselves call "macroevolution".


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. - Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The argument of induction as discussed by Michael Behe above is still being evaded by "wishful speculations", "wishful thinking", fanciful bedtime stories that can't even be honestly described as hypotheses anymore (the way "hypothesis" is defined by at least one dictionary for scientific terminologies that I've read). It's not helping your case at all (unless for those that are victims of propaganda and marketing of these philosophies and "false stories", myths; as I mentioned before in another way; those already inclined to believe there is any merit to them, those getting their ears tickled).

What I mentioned above about hypotheses could provide a person with a clue as to what caveat I would have with the way Stephen C. Meyer describes the situation inaccurately* regarding those thinking about these subjects below after 3:30 (actually at 3:51 but I recommend the context), an "argument of induction" and "drawing general Conclusions from Experiments and Observations by Induction" is not a hypothesis either (quoting Newton again):

*: he's already giving too much credit to bedtime stories, just-so stories, maybe-so stories, "wishful speculations", myths, "a philosophical belief" (quoting another teacher and marketeer of evolutionary philosophies who prefers to market his own version of the 'nature did it'-storyline contrasting it with what he refers to as "Darwinian evolution"; as if his version isn't still the same at its core: 'nature did it, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards, damn the real evidence'). The last quotation is from Professor James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, University of Chicago. As quoted near the beginning of the video called "The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1" that I linked earlier.
edit on 20-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Sweet! More claims, Gish gallops, no citations and then scripture. What a brilliant rebuttal! Do you even see the irony of whining about an alleged lack of evidence despite providing none yourself? I bet you're a riot at parties! Just no birthday or Christmas parties I guess.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Pretty sure your "god" told you not to call others fools... typical Christian i suppose, clueless as to whats in your book and in this case... reality

Look at nature, trees... no one created any of it... it is a part of nature, which came by nature... they were here before anyone ever thought of a "creator" and will be here long after any of us

Now of course you will say, Oh god created all of it... but that isn't actually reality

the entire planet did not need a creator... it just needed mass

simple explanations to simple issues... but far over the head of simple people apparently

Funny thing is i believe the universe was created by God... Not your god, but thats neither here nor there

The difference between you and i, is that i believe it was created billions of years ago, and things evolved as they did.... you on the other hand subscribe to "Poof"... God did it!! Because thats what my book says..

I let the human intellect, and sciences figure out how it all played out... you believe your book already had it figured out... which is hilarious if anything


edit on 20-11-2017 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I didn't even mention God I stated what was factual anything brought into existence was created and that's a fact... That's the meaning of creation...
And by the way God said to tell the truth so fool is fitting for you...
If you don't believe God is the creator of the Universe don't run around here pretending you believe in him anymore...
You can't have it both ways...
I think you are the delusional one borderline schizophrenic even...
Make up your mind...
edit on 20-11-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

I didn't even mention God I stated what was factual anything brought into existence was created and that's a fact... That's the meaning of creation...


except that isn't a fact... its barely a theory




posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic
Do you even see the irony of whining about an alleged lack of evidence despite providing none yourself?

Yes, I see that very clearly in what you're doing, as well as psychological projection and stick your head in the sand behaviour regarding the evidence that I shared in the comment you were responding to and the previous page; regarding which I only got silence, just like in my own thread on this subforum, months and months of silence (ignoring the straw man twisting stuff from Barcs and more standard ad hominem attacks on my character, which is not much of a response to the facts discussed in that thread): Watch "Gradual Change of Things" or "Development" (Over Time) in Action.

Why won't you argue something like the video entitled "evidence of Design from biology" is not really evidence (you could even go with the lame 'videos are not evidence' version of that argument to ignore the scholarly citations* and evidence from experiments and observations provided by Michael Behe in that presentation that just happens to be on video; *: like the citation from the book The Way of the Cell published by Oxford University Press, a prestigious scholarly publishing house, written by a teacher of evolutionary philosophies who is also professor emeritus of biochemistry at Colorado State University and affiliate professor of microbiology at the University of Washington)? At least then you're not making it so obvious what propaganda techniques you're using or have fallen victim to. And it might be more convincing for some people that you're here to reason about this subject with at least a glimmer of rationality rather than attacking the person who's linking the evidence that you don't respond to with anything rational or reasonable. Too busy painting pictures on the one presenting the evidence that you won't "put up with" (quoting 2 Timothy 4:3,4) while ironically accusing them of making ad hominem attacks which people in the field of psychology refer to as "psychological projection" and is one of the many favorite sticks that propagandists like the youtube atheist propagandist AronRa and Matt Dillahunty like to beat a dead horse with. Painting pictures on others that won't fall for their tricks while ignoring the behaviour of their own fanbase regarding that subject.

The "no citations" argument was funny though. I guess the zoologist Henry Gee that I cited from In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23. was quite right to use the word "amusing" even though he was talking about something else on that occasion.


cite: refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.

synonyms: quote

Source: google dictionary

I also quoted/cited from Newton from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which has been described as "the greatest book of science ever written, bar none" and "the most magnificent work, it is the most all-encompassing work, it is the most daring book of any scientific treatise ever written", quoting former Distinguished Professor of the College of Arts and Sciences and Professor of History of Indiana State University, Gale E. Christianson in the documentary below after 1:23 (a man quite qualified to speak about this subject given his area of expertise):

Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality
edit on 20-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I see what you're doing there...
some fancy word play.... tricky!

Yes, everything was created, very good. You win!

... but let's clarify here, do you mean:

... "created by, as of yet, unexplained natural processes"?

or

... "created by a supernatural power/sentience, that exists outside of the laws of the creation/universe, with meaning and intent"?

Because you're use of the word "created" in a thread about evolution suggests the latter. However, you are intimating that you may be using the former. You are by inference conflating the different meanings of "create" without explicitly stating the meaning you are referring to.

... and the punchline is, when we agree that everything is "created"... you get to say; see?... CREATION!!!

This is what you call academic dishonesty, and is a classic creationist tactic.

As I said previously...

Typical.
edit on 20-11-2017 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle


If you don't believe God is the creator of the Universe don't run around here pretending you believe in him anymore...


say what?

Find one sentence in my entire posting list that says i don't believe in God?

Like i said previously... Not YOUR God


You can't have it both ways...


So its Christanity's God.. or no God?


I think you are the delusional one borderline schizophrenic even...
Make up your mind...


Yet you're the one just making things up here...




posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: cooperton
...
(Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.)
...
(New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.)
...
(New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.)
...
(Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23).
...
(Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, www.archaeology.org/​online/ interviews/​newman.html, accessed 2/23/2009.)
...
(In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.)
...

Unless ATS is censoring the comment above in such a way that I'm the only one that can see it (the way youtube does to my comments when I put a link in them, very annoying), I don't get peter vlar's "Sweet! More claims, Gish gallops, no citations....What a brilliant rebuttal!" (especially since he didn't respond to the comment above, and the comment he did respond to also contained citations and repetitions of the citations or the most relevant parts of those in the comment above and subsequent comments of mine; the least someone can do is make the lame argument that 'that's just their opinion' or a variation on that general downplaying technique as was done in my thread on this subforum or zoom in and nag about the only citation that has "speculative essay" in the title to distract from the acknowledgements regarding specific facts about "common descent" and the "tree of life" therein, even when they are not presented as facts but in the standard preferred agnostic vague way; a favorite way of arguing and thinking in philosophical naturalism cause otherwise, when applying Newton's methodology as quoted/cited earlier, the propaganda game is exposed way too quickly)

Well I get it in the sense of thinking about chatbots and propaganda techniques (either as a victim or one that likes to use them). But perhaps an appropiate time for some of the people that agree with peter vlar's views and way of arguing on this subforum to speak up and mention that there might be something wrong in the way things are done on ATS in terms of rational conversation vs propaganda techniques? Silent agreement with absolute nonsense is not something that rubs off well when thinking about bandwagon behaviour, as described in the article in my signature and preceding page. What the heck, even if you don't agree with peter vlar, it's still OK to say at least something about it so I know sensible people (willing to make sense and be honest) are still out there. I think Cooperton might notice what I'm talking about, so go ahead, perhaps you can say something sensible and honest about it while still maintaining respectful to those who stay silent (even while making comments in this thread; I'm thinking now about the "ad hominem attacks" accusation earlier, or the ridiculous claim about the fossil record initially).

Btw, you can see the exact same routine in my thread that I linked in my previous comment (plus a couple of others, like straw man arguments, red herrings, doing the thing that cooperton already talked about regarding the source of whatever facts or evidence that is presented, or where the citations are nicely ordered in terms of relevance to a particular point, in this case the fossil record and genetics, etc.).
edit on 20-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

smaller paragraphs would help my friend...

so you're saying the members of the opposing position of yours are being more belligerent in this thread?



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon
No, I did not talk about "being more belligerent". I talked mostly about rationality, reason, logic, nonsense and a variety of fallacies and psychological projection. Also silent agreement was something I discussed. And all of that pertained to the specific subjects of claims regarding the fossil record, accusations of ad hominem attacks and using no citations. Another main topic throughout was propaganda and propaganda techniques.

So, did I use citations? What could be a motivation for peter vlar to argue that I didn't use citations? What's going on in his mind? What does he wants to accomplish with such an argument? Or how about these questions from the article in my signature:

Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.

First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’

I didn't bold "appeal to emotions" for nothing there. Just like I didn't bold "no evidence at all" before for nothing. And talking about "nothing", how about the silent agreement with this behaviour:
Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something
Especially when Stephen Hawking is doing it as explained below starting at 16:10.

edit on 20-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

edits for clarity are in between brackets (synonyms):

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. - Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)


The argument of induction as discussed by Michael Behe above is still being evaded by "wishful speculations", "wishful thinking", fanciful bedtime stories that can't even be honestly described as hypotheses anymore (the way "hypothesis" is defined by at least one dictionary for scientific terminologies that I've read). It's not helping your case at all (unless for those that are victims of propaganda and marketing of these philosophies and "false stories", myths; as I mentioned before in another way; those already inclined to believe there is any merit to them, those getting their ears tickled).

What I mentioned above about hypotheses could provide a person with a clue as to what caveat I would have with the way Stephen C. Meyer describes the situation inaccurately* regarding those thinking about these subjects below after 3:30 (actually at 3:51 but I recommend the context), an "argument of induction" and "drawing general Conclusions from Experiments and Observations by Induction" is not a hypothesis either (quoting[/citing] Newton again):

*: he's already giving too much credit to bedtime stories, just-so stories, maybe-so stories, "wishful speculations", myths, "a philosophical belief" (quoting[/citing] another teacher and marketeer of evolutionary philosophies who prefers to market his own version of the 'nature did it'-storyline contrasting it with what he refers to as "Darwinian evolution"; as if his version isn't still the same at its core: 'nature did it, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards, damn the real evidence'). The last quotation[/citation] is from Professor James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, University of Chicago. As quoted[/cited] near the beginning of the video called "The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1" that I linked earlier.

I didn't want to cram in the context of my last quotation/citation of Isaac Newton there so as not to lose track of the point I was making and because I've shared it many times before on this subforum but here it goes again:

“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)

Instead of questioning whether or not I'm using citations from scholarly works or quotations from scholarly persons (and you'll be hardpressed to find any commentary of mine without either here in this thread*) or starting a debate about relevance (while ignoring my citations about the fossil record and genetics), or arguing in a rather silly manner that I'm not using citations, one might wonder for a moment why I bolded the word "other" before another important terminology in that citation "certain Truths".

*: the former (written scholarly works) usually being more numerous than the latter (verbal statements; not that these are any less valid when they're true/factual and based on a proper way of inductive reasoning, or just when they are reasonable statements to consider).

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning (another citation with emphasis):

"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. ..."

You can find one comment of mine on page 46 without quotations or citations of scholarly works or scholarly persons, that is, as long as you don't consider peter vlar as a scholarly person or his commentary as scholarly works (writings), which I'm assuming (hoping?) no one here does. Otherwise the situation would be more dire than I've been describing so far. Just as a reminder, regarding the word "cite" from the definition proposed by the google dictionary, "scholarly" wasn't even a logical requirement by their use of "especially", written works was a requirement for the use of the word "citation". Not that quotations of verbal statements are not worthy of our consideration especially when made by those researching the relevant fields (I quoted one verbal statement from Distinguished Professor of the College of Arts and Sciences and Professor of History of Indiana State University, Gale E. Christianson; allthough I'm not going to check if I quoted more than that one, the majority are citations from scholarly works and one letter to a board of education).

I got 3 responses from peter vlar, none of which contained citations nor quotations from scholarly works or persons or otherwise. How about we start doing a more complete count for the names Phantom423 mentioned: Peter Vlar, Barcs (the usual commenters in favor of evolutionary philosophies on this forum)? Without starting a debate about the reliability of their citations and quotations or someone twisting what I'm saying here by pretending I'm implying that all 3 hardly ever do that (Phantom423 included) or that I'm the one requiring or requesting them or otherwise I'll accuse them (paint them) of or consider them as someone "offer[ing] nothing to the thread...More claims, Gish gallops, no citations...What a brilliant rebuttal!" (meant sarcastically and clearly as an ad hominem attack). Quoting peter vlar.

Phantom423: 3 out of 7 has quotations and/or citations from pages 46-48
Barcs: 0 out of 3 from pages 39-48
Peter Vlar: 0 out of 3 from the moment I started commenting and 0 out of 4 if you count the comment I was responding to, 0 out of 6 if you go back to page 43, I don't feel encouraged to look any further also because I ran into the "Gish Gallop" ad hominem attack directed at a whole group of people (generalization) and painting he was doing on page 43 as well just like the way he responded to me: a propaganda routine (either as a victim picking up the behaviour or someone doing it on purpose cause he knows it works so well on a particular target audience, which is also why the behaviour is conditioned in the victims, snowball-effect). Also described under the terminologies "group think" and "self-confirming" at 2:50 below:

In case someone missed it "wishful speculations" was also a citation from a scholarly work published by a highly respected scholarly publishing house (Oxford University Press).
edit on 20-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Quite mining isn't a citation. You can post whatever you like and claim its evidence but it doesn't mean squat if nobody else can engage in due diligence and see what the proper context of your quote mining was, where it came from and how the conclusions were obtained.

The bottom line is that as a Jehovah's Witness, you're simply repeating the same BS that they tell you to think. I've seen it all first hand. They stop by my house a few time per year and I always invite them in. It's the same woman every time and she brings various members of the local Kingdom Hall because it's an educational experience for them so that they can hone their anti science arguments for use on less knowledgeable people. She's super nice so if Ife got the time, I have her in and mke some coffee and sit back and wait for the show.

But everything you post is the same regurgitated garbage they use in person so it's pretty clear that you guys are operating off of a standardized script and don't think for yourselves. It's a joke. At least Cooperton admits he's using the same copy and paste crap from his favorite YEC websites. You're pretending you've got a valid argument andnits quite honestly hilarious. Especially when you use scripture as evidence.

If nothing else, you're entertaining but the material is getting stale because you use the same crap in every one of these threads, same scripture and everything. You should come to my local Kingdom Hall because at least they try to vary their approach. You could learn a few things from their perseverance.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic

Quite mining isn't a citation.

Moving on to the next false accusation ad hominem attack. I'll just take a break and let my commentary sink in for some who are as tired of and disappointed in this routine as I am. Those who remain silent in agreement with this behaviour will remain utterly unconvincing to me no matter how many "self-confirming" so-called "peer reviewed" biased articles they want to cite.

There, now you have another comment of mine without a citation to paint your picture on. Have fun. If I make 2 more comments like this one I'll be on par with Phantom423 for the last 3 pages.
edit on 20-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: puzzlesphere

The Universe is known to have a beginning...
Figure it out...
In case you can't...
Here's the answer it was created...
Go look up the definition for created...
Figure it out...
It was brought into existence dummy...


Maybe instead of staying up well past your bedtime little boy, you should get off of ATS and read a book because in Cosmology and Physics, the Big Bang Theory does not state that before the BB there was nothing and then poof... the entire universe came into existence from that nothingness. Seriously, it would really behoove you to educate yourself a little. I'm sure your 8th grade science teacher could give you some suggestions. If not, try THIS book . It has a lot of polysyllabic words in it though so maybe you could get our mom to read it to you at bedtime. Learning is good. You won't look like A dummy if you learn about what you're attempting to discuss before typing. It won't help your arrogance but hey... baby steps!



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic

Quite mining isn't a citation.

Moving on to the next false accusation ad hominem attack. I'll just take a break and let my commentary sink in for some who are as tired of and disappointed in this routine as I am. Those who remain silent in agreement with this behaviour will remain utterly unconvincing to me no matter how many "self-confirming" so-called "peer reviewed" biased articles they want to cite.

There, now you have another comment of mine without a citation to paint your picture on. Have fun. If I make 2 more comments like this one I'll be on par with Phantom423 for the last 3 pages.


Of course, why address your shortcomings and falacious post history when you can tuck your tail between your legs and walk away. If you don't understand that quote mining garbage without providing a citation invalidated your tripe then there's no point in discussing this.

Actually, there isn't any point as it is because as I've noted, you don't use your own big boy words and simply regurgitate what Watchtower, Awake and your local elders tell you to think. When was the last time you set foot in a science class beyond high school or sifted dirt at a dig site? Hell, when was the last time you visited a dig period? I'm sorry if you feel I'm resorting to ad hominem attacks but it's not the case.

Certainly I'm being facetious but what kind of a reply are you expecting when your refutation of valid science that you clearly don't understand we'll enough to falsify, is scripture from a bizarre version of the Bible that didn't exist prior to 1950.

So yes, I laugh and think it's all a big joke when someone uses scripture to support their lack of understanding of science. Especially when they're notorious for quote mining and misrepresenting science entirely out of context. It's your usual strategy in every one of these threads and you're extremely predictable, using the same regurgitated crap and the same lame scripture over and over again.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I think you might consider applying for a job as writer for this publication. Lord knows you always have a lot to say!




posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic


originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: cooperton
...
(Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.)
...
(New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.)
...
(New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.)
...
(Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23).
...
(Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, www.archaeology.org/​online/ interviews/​newman.html, accessed 2/23/2009.)
...
(In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.)
...


Unless ATS is censoring the comment above in such a way that I'm the only one that can see it ..., I don't get peter vlar's "Sweet! More claims, Gish gallops, no citations....What a brilliant rebuttal!" (especially since he didn't respond to the comment above, and the comment he did respond to also contained citations and repetitions of the citations or the most relevant parts of those in the comment above and subsequent comments of mine; the least someone can do is make the lame argument that 'that's just their opinion' or a variation on that general downplaying technique as was done in my thread on this subforum or zoom in and nag about the only citation that has "speculative essay" in the title to distract from the acknowledgements regarding specific facts about "common descent" and the "tree of life" therein, even when they are not presented as facts but in the standard preferred agnostic vague way; a favorite way of arguing and thinking in philosophical naturalism cause otherwise, when applying Newton's methodology as quoted/cited earlier, the propaganda game is exposed way too quickly)

Making false accusations of quote mining (without reasonable details regarding the inconvenient quotations/citations that person doesn't want to be reminded of or doesn't want to "put up with", doesn't want to hear, acknowledge, have some reasonable thoughts about or doesn't want anyone else to think about) is one of those variations I was thinking about (which was also done in my own thread here), allthough I can't spell them all out ahead of time to close each and every door to a propaganda technique, too many options to do this (between brackets is mine):

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. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
...
Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies.
...
Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. [check out if you can count all the comments with the ad hominem attack towards an entire group or individuals in this thread with the term "gish gallop"; but there are probably even better examples in this thread]
...
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. [see the use of the label "clown" or similar loaded language; you can also forgo on connecting the terms "creationism" and "creationist" to me since they don't apply to me or anything I'm saying or anyone who I'm citing; making that a red herring as well as a paintjob, as discussed in more detail in the thread The Genesis Account and How it Refutes Creationism including my commentary there]
...
[and here comes the big one]
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.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. And, as in the case of envy, fear can be played upon. The Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, of February 15, 1999, reported the following from Moscow: “When three girls committed suicide in Moscow last week, the Russian media immediately suggested they were fanatical followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Note the word “fanatical.” [or better yet, note the word "belligerant" and see how some people can leave a reminder about a picture of a certain character stereotype without ever being able to be 'accused' of implying something about another person with it, the other can only suspect it and be forced to remain silent about it to avoid being accused in turn of making false accusations or false implications, even when presented as just a remote suspicion possibly not entirely thought through; now that's what I call cunning, see Ephesians 6:11, I think I also said something about the "are you saying" phrase in my own thread]
...
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. [works on individuals just as well, or when pushing , reminding people of, or painting character stereotypes]

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.
...
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.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.
...
Be selective: ....

Sources: The Manipulation of Information and Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! Awake!—2000
Even though there was no quote mining in my commentary, I think I should leave a reminder that even quote mining = citing under the conditions described in the google dictionary (for all the silent agree-ers).
edit on 20-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

evidence = the universe exists, thus it was created


According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, since something exists, that something must have always existed. That is what the philosophers, the lovers of knowledge, call the Alpha-Omega, the Being that always was and always shall be.


originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic
At least Cooperton admits he's using the same copy and paste crap from his favorite YEC websites.


I said the opposite of that. I came to my conclusions through logical reasoning, and it so happens that others have come to the same conclusions. Rational discourse is what brought me to a Spirit-based origins model.

edit on 20-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
Even though there was no quote mining in my commentary, I think I should leave a reminder that even quote mining = citing under the conditions described in the google dictionary (for all the silent agree-ers).

So this:

...no citations...

Was a lie/falsehood. Defended by another lie/falsehood as an 'excuse' (or unreasonable justification) for the earlier lie/falsehood*:

Quite mining isn't a citation.

Which was also a false accusation thus another lie/falsehood (that makes 3 in a row).

*: notice I'm not arguing or implying yet that anyone is lying on purpose; I've already left plenty of hints regarding victims picking up certain behaviour without even realizing it, as well as hints about at what point it becomes a bit too ridiculous or too far removed from the proper reasonable use of logic and language not to start thinking about the possibility of it being on purpose, or even discussing that.

According to my experiments and observations on ATS I have concluded by the methodology of inductive reasoning that the bible is reliable when it describes what would happen to the mental conditions of those described below (and many other places with similar descriptions that have more details):

Matthew 5:11

11 “Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake.

Coming back to something I cited earlier from an extremely scholarly article about the subject of propaganda, the best concise article about the subject I've ever come across in my opinion if those are allowed to be shared when others do it here quite frequently, or sharing biased opinions in citations:

Ask questions: ... First, examine whether there is bias. ...Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth?

Check and strike 3 (falsehoods in a row, not counting them all but focussing on the most obvious ones), as is usually the case on this forum regarding some accounts I've already read comments from, not a good track record at all as can also be observed in my own thread here, since it's the same routine over and over, the same falsehoods over and over, the same paintjobs over and over, etc.

There's still the issue of silent agreement though, related to the subjects of group think and bandwagon behaviour. The snowball-effect and patterns in human behaviour and ways of thinking and arguing (especially as observable on ATS).

In any way, I will continue my experiments and observations regarding human psychology on ATS to compare it with what the bible has to say about it and use inductive reasoning to see if there's any merit to what it says. Thanks in advance to anyone who continues to provide me with lots of observations to reason on.

I'm also trying to follow a healthy loving example:

Proverbs 3:12

12 For those whom Jehovah loves he reproves,

Just as a father does a son in whom he delights.


Revelation 3:19 (Jesus speaking)

19 “‘All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent.

Proverbs 12:1

12 The one who loves discipline loves knowledge,

But the one who hates reproof is unreasoning.* [Or “has no sense.”]


In contrast, the psalmist David, who was himself repeatedly reproved, wrote: “Should the righteous one strike me, it would be a loving-kindness; and should he reprove me, it would be oil upon the head, which my head would not want to refuse.”—Ps 141:5.

Since I agree with David there and since the bible also teaches what has become known as the golden rule ('do unto others as you would have them do unto you'), I will continue to reprove where appropiate, if not (just) for the one I'm reproving, then for others who might be listening (reading in this case technically).

Back to the WWE wrestling...
edit on 20-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join