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: 94
16
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

As to Prof. Dawkins lying, unlikely. It might have been a good idea for this person to request clarification from Dawkins before jumping to conclusions. Or at least to consult biologists (ones who aren't driven by religious delusions) for the explanation. Failing that, read the comments below the vid itself, where an amatuer tries to straighten the issue and point out why this person is simply trying to mislead the gullible, all to deaf ears of course.

At best what little you provide in any genuine scientific sense, illustrates that there is much discussion over the details of evolution/ common descent. Not over the fact that it happened and continues to happen.

The JW/creationist propaganda is hilarious. There is probably no better example of of creationists not understanding the concept, and of the idea that we are becoming more stupid as a species.

You do realise that we have only a fraction of biological forms represented in the fossil record? We simply don't even know every species that exists at this very moment, let alone the distant past.

Instead of presenting a gish gallop of of random minutiae, misrepresentations and outright ignorance (as in the propaganda vids), that isn't really going to sway anyone, why don't you submit something coherent that you feel convincingly disproves the fact of evolution? Something that would have some logical order to it, that can be fact checked.

Then it would be fascinating if you could provide something logical, coherent and fact checkable to indicate that biological forms *poof* into existence fully formed, by Jehova.


ps. The "clear progression in the fossil record" that you keep harping on about, is true. That progression exists. From ancient micro organisms to the more advanced forms, all consistent with the geological layers. Instead of harping on about creatures that aren't well represented in the fossil record, can you supply something that refutes this?




posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: whereislogic
From ancient micro organisms to the more advanced forms, all consistent with the geological layers. Instead of harping on about creatures that aren't well represented in the fossil record, can you supply something that refutes this?


Before anyone supplies anything that refutes this, can you supply anything that supports this? Since you believe evolution is fact, it should be no problem to find mounds of evidence that unequivocally demonstrates these evolutionary transitions.

You come in with no new data and typical ad hominems about how dumb everyone is that doesn't believe as you do.

Show us this definitive proof. Unless, "There is no other supportable explanation..." is your best explanation?

edit on 5-12-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: whereislogic

You do realise that we have only a fraction of biological forms represented in the fossil record?

What happened to "Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between...."? (quoting peter vlar)

Why are you remaining in silent agreement regarding that claim since page 46 including the comment(s) you've made in response to me, almost all of which are a response to that claim? Why do you say nothing about peter vlar's (and others on the same bandwagon) way or pattern of responding to me (eg. red herrings or distractions away from that claim vs the relevant facts I brought up in response, ad hominem attacks, paintjobs, tip-toeing and twisting around the issue, appeals and reverse appeals to pride, playing on the fear of seeming stupid, etc., the things I discussed on pages 46-48, 51,53,57, 68-70) when I bring up what the issues with that claim are? Why are you remaining in silent agreement with his (and others) way of arguing to distract from that claim? Why do you go along with the distraction game adding to it? It seems your statement there logically contradicts the claim made by peter vlar, yet it's me you feel like disagreeing with and responding to, why?

Same questions for noinden's claims regarding genetic correlation. And same thing with the claim that a lack of evidence does not disprove the theory of evolution from dragonridr, which also seems to acknowledge he's well aware that peter vlar's claim is not true ("clear transitions" and "all those steps in between" seems a bit incompatible with "a lack of evidence" as a response to the subject of the evolution of plankton to bats and merely asking for a specific/clear/definitive name* and/or accompanying fossil for just 1 step "in between", the last one before bats; see also my commentary regarding what to expect people can provide after such a claim from peter vlar about the fossil record not even mentioning any organism as an exception to that claim "all those steps in between" "...plankton and todays organisms", not 1 exception like bats, when the storylines with whales which has been described as "best evidence" doesn't even match that description "all those steps in between", and "clear transitions"; referring back to my very first comment about it, but not encouraging to ignore the other subsequent comments, do any of you on your bandwagon ever read back comments? Or read them again to make sure that you don't accidentily twist the points someone is making and end up responding to the twist? Or just to make sure that you gain a better understanding of someone you're responding to? What they're talking about so you don't change the subject accidentily? Or end up playing the red herring distraction debate game accidentily, without it being deliberate?). Go enjoy your bandwagon party some more, you guys remain unconvincing in the manner described on pages 46-48 by me. Not once will you acknowledge something that is true regarding the claims I referred to above. One lie after another, one silent agreement with someone on your bandwagon putting forward a lie/falsehood after another. It's only me you're after, peter vlar, Dawkins and the others can do no wrong and their behaviour must at all times be ignored (that includes the behaviour and way of arguing regarding the word "nothing" for which I shared a video a couple of times; why no response to that when responding to me? In particular the ones I addressed a specific question to regarding that video called "Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something"; which was not just a question to Akragon, it was an open question to the floor which I also said or asked something about before or better yet, this reminder).

You're wasting people's time and destroying their minds and any semblance of rationality they might have had left after this relentless and "persevering use of propaganda" (quoting Adolf Hitler from Mein Kampf, full quotation given before).

2 Timothy 3:1-4

3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,

Why won't you respond to this part of my commentary for example:

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—Henry Gee, paleontologist, senior editor of Nature magazine

Ah well, apparently I'm just quote mining so we don't have to think about the term "bedtime story" in relation to the term "false stories" (myths). And this time I didn't include the caveat nor the mention of what Henry Gee believes in regarding the topic of alternate evolutionary philosopies or paths of reasoning and doing things, or not acknowledging that that's all you've got, bedtime stories (also in the other fields than paleontology). The greatest show on earth according to Dawkins. "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage", is that not exactly what Miller is doing in the old debate I shared earlier about whale evolution? How about we acknowledge that at least? Regardless if that means it's a "bedtime story" that he's presenting as evidence there. Or whether that last reality means that he's using propaganda.

Can you agree or acknowledge anything that is both true and relevant to the way of reasoning and marketing "bedtime" stories described and referred to above (focus on the bolded part)? The relevant videos about whale evolution can be found in . Please don't just respond with the standardized set of arguments and propagandistic patterns without even bothering to look at that comment and more importantly, those videos (the timeframes I indicated). And also please don't ignore all my commentary and reminders that I can't tell when the use of propaganda or display of the effect of propaganda is deliberate or because one is a victim and has picked up the behaviour or has started thinking and viewing certain people a certain way now because of that propaganda (especially regarding the emotions pride and fear that I talking about, with quotations from the article in my signature and my own elaboration on those) either.

*: I know it's a while ago that I put the * in, but I mentioned before that I wasn't looking for a general domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order or family name like "panprimates" that describes many different organisms and fossils. A specific/clear/definitive name, just like "bats", in a "clear" manner as promised by peter vlar's claim that nobody objected to.
edit on 6-12-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
The relevant videos about whale evolution can be found in ...

edit: this comment.

I was screwing around with the maximum space there, deleting a link so I could add a few words to my comment but forgetting to put the link back in and then I ran out of edit time. It's kinda crucial to actually read that comment AND watch the timeframes in the videos that I discussed there in order to make a coherent response to my last comment that isn't standardized and conditioned propaganda behaviour (either as a victim repeating the arguments and ways of reasoning and twisting logic+everything else I mentioned and more or as someone doing it deliberately because it works so well, see this comment of mine regarding that bolded phrase).

And it's also telling to stay silent when someone brings up psychological projection and gets flak for even daring to mention the term while being accused of a lack of education and worse by someone who zealously has faith in (believes in) so-called "Common Descent" which they can't even spell properly (because of repeated usage of Common Decent, not a typing error) and painted as somenoe not educated, knowledgeable or intelligent enough and that they should "Try reading some genetics papers. Not your JW rags.

So when you can find scientific papers to back your claims, we can talk more." (paintjob in appeal to and reverse appeal to pride mode, also playing on the fear of seeming stupid regarding anyone who reads that, as in, 'don't listen to this guy if you don't want to put yourself on the same level of ignorance and JW brainwashing; a carefuly concealed ad hominem attack that also ends up influencing others and functions as a red herring or distraction away from the facts I brought up as well as peter vlar's claim again and the silent agreement bandwagon behaviour). And no, I don't tend to complain about people making spelling errors or make fun of that, and neither am I doing so here, that would be another red herring debate away from my real points here regarding bandwagon and propaganda behaviour (including the hidden paintjobs and attempts to influence others if it's deliberate, something one might want to contemplate one day if and when that's the case, deliberate because it works so well for that propagandistic purpose). So don't change this around and start pointing out any spelling or typing errors I have made, my keyboard is already giving me enough issues and English isn't even my mother tongue or start a paintjob on me that I'm someone who nags about someone not knowing their English well enough or making spelling errors for other reasons and that I'm the ridiculer here. I even was very respectful in my correction of his use of:

..."Common Decent" (Descent)...

Quoting myself from before when I didn't say a thing about it other than making that correction, with some restraint on my part I might add (which I admit, I couldn't just let it be in this comment when I started thinking about it again in relation to the silent agreement regarding comments such as above about "Try reading some genetics papers. Not your JW rags.

So when you can find scientific papers to back your claims..."

Cogito, Ergo Sum's comment made in response to my comment responding to that comment demonstrating this silent agreement (not having an issue with this propagandistic behaviour, regardless of whether or not it's deliberate; not willing to say anything about it or answer any of my questions about it or responding to my appeals to find some agreement regarding this issue described in this comment and this comment).

And the numerous similar examples of such subtle paintjob comments that I gave on page 68 (as well as being a demonstration of having been affected by propaganda and psychological projection regarding claims that aren't backed up by the facts, even blatantly contradict those as well as contradicted with the other arguments or points made, such as peter vlar's claims, contradicted by dragonridr's and Cogito, Ergo Sum's points that they felt like making in response to my commentary about it; but acknowledging that what peter vlar said about what the fossil record shows isn't true/factual/definitive/unambiguous, oh no we can't say anything about that).
edit on 6-12-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

so ultimately what are you trying to say here...

you keep posting walls of texts and videos

are you saying your religion is what everyone should be following, regardless of science or study?




posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon
Back to the 'are you saying'-routine I described before and referred and linked to my thread in this subforum about it? Just like your first response to me when you tried to do the same thing?

put words in (to) someone's mouth (The Free Dictionary) (between brackets is mine):

Fig. to interpret what someone said so that the words mean what you want [or what you want others to 'hear', the impression you want them to get from it: paintjob used as both a red herring and ad hominem attack] and not what the speaker wanted.
...
say or suggest that somebody has said something, when they have not


That's also a behavioural pattern that it would be nice if people stop staying in silent agreement about or doing it themselves as demonstrated in my thread on this subforum. Or consider for a moment the terminology "cult" that TerryDon was so fond of a couple of pages back in relation to what this article has to say about that term:
The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

And again, it's repetitive ("By clever and persevering use of propaganda..."), because it works so well (it's the same paintjob but phrased differently, you didn't even change your brush or style, a short useless distracting comment; a chatbot could have done it; and it's not even predominantly my commentary that fills 94 pages in this thread, but there are some people who don't want anyone to get to the bottem of the matters I'm discussing, so short repetitive propaganda and foolish useless comments are much better for that purpose, so people stay at the surface, denying the facts and refusing to even consider some self-reflection regarding these issues). Anyone up for a round of figuring out when it's done deliberately with full awareness of its effectiveness? And/or who is using these techniques deliberately? I'm wiling to take a bet or educated guess on TerryDon: deliberate. How many times did he repeat the word "cult" again to influence other potential readers here? From my perspective it's probably more than 50% of all his responses to me, you think the comment is meant for me or for others? You'd think a person wouldn't rationally need to repeat the same false accusation and propagandistic label-technique if the response is only meant for the person it's said to and if that person has responded to it with the facts about propaganda, brainwashing and the psychology related to those subjects and how to recognize it multiple times, including in their own threads, the details TerryDon won't acknowledge unless it's when twisting them and painting them on those who are exposing these techniques, his techniques, the techniques and ways of thinking, reasoning and arguing that also gets picked up because of being affected by them in a snowball-effect bandwagon type of way (victims of propaganda, where my emphasis lay on pride and fear but there are many other things discussed in the article in my signature, some of which I've also talked about on ATS and in response to TerryDon long ago, often in my own threads). Same propaganda links over and over again as well. You don't do it that way if you want to convince that particular individual of something. Short comment, no content, label "cult", propaganda link. Again and again, everywhere they might say something that might have some relevant facts that might wake some people up to these types making comments on ATS and influencing people subtly (hiding in the shadows of irrelevant comments on irrelevant threads most of the time and popping out when needed to distract from those facts, pages 88-91).

Between brackets is mine.

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. [the accusation "cult" in the way made by TerryDon is a false accusation, a lie, the relevant facts that might help a person discover that are discussed in my own threads where TerryDon or others made the same or similar accusations, for example "Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find?"]
...
Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. Generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people. [the false accusation "cult" and all the brainwashing connotations that come with it is also a generalization, a means to demean an entire group of people]
...
Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

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

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis notes that “bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, . . . sent [people] to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen.” [the false accusation "cult" is also name-calling and a label, it helps subtly nudging people towards this behaviour without them even realizing their own fear and hatred and in complete denial of history, or attempting to distract themselves from the abhorent behaviour that is deep witin themselves as well but has not manifested itself yet, but the feelings are there because of the comments made by the TerryDon types:

Jehovahs Witnesses- [a destructive cult?] Persecution of a peaceable people
Conveniently brushed away by painting a persecution complex on the very group being described as "the most persecuted religion of the 20th century" by a reputable source. Click that link for the subsequent videos with relevant facts and making possible observations regarding human behaviour. Bringing us to...]
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.
...

I was out of space, but wouldn't it be nice if someone were willing to read the rest where it really gets to the bottem of this "cult" accusation and how it's used in the media as well.
Source:The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000
edit on 6-12-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

So... Is that a yes?

i asked a simple question and you splater me with this page of text..


edit on 6-12-2017 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: whereislogic

So... Is that a yes?

i asked a simple question and you splater me with this page of text..



Tragic case of diarrhea of the mouth. Probably the worse case ive ever seen.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally po

DNA (via RNA) codes for proteins (and RNA enzymes) is ubiquitous. The Ocam's razor would thus mean, a common source for this.


Yeah a common Creative force that assembled it into being.




Add to that, that the same code (same 4 nucleic acids) are used in DNA (and RNA except a nucleic acid different). Again Ocam's Razor would imply common decent.

Codons (the nucleic adic codes for amino acids) are likewise ubiquitous, which is unlikely for convergent evolution.

Then there is the fact that the chirality of biological molecules is the same. You only have L-Amino acids being used by life.

QED Common decent.


These observations are also indicative of a common Creator. Just like you would expect all Mac operating systems to have similar coding - because they were created by the same company. If anything, "Genetic code" is indicative of the Coder who created this beautifully complex system.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: whereislogic
From ancient micro organisms to the more advanced forms, all consistent with the geological layers. Instead of harping on about creatures that aren't well represented in the fossil record, can you supply something that refutes this?


Before anyone supplies anything that refutes this, can you supply anything that supports this? Since you believe evolution is fact, it should be no problem to find mounds of evidence that unequivocally demonstrates these evolutionary transitions.


I never offered to supply you anything at all. Much less anything that you demand or that would "unequivocally demonstrate these transitions" to you (as if anything could lol). I stated that the fossil record shows a clear progression from ancient microorganisms to more advanced (complex) forms and in a way that is geologically consistent with evolution. Also pointing out that arguing about bats doesn't change that.

Do you really dispute that? Why is it all consistent with evolutionary theory, why aren't they all mixed up? Why don't we see whales with ancient sponges? Or apes with early tetrapods? Or perhaps Fred and Barney with Dino (yabba dabba doo lol?)


You come in with no new data and typical ad hominems about how dumb everyone is that doesn't believe as you do.

Data? I did supply data. You didn't read it.

It looks like our species is becoming duller across the board. If you can go "nah, was an entirely unevidenced sky fairy that magically *poofed* everything into existence in present form".... it isn't unfair to wonder if this is a result of being "cognitively challenged" to begin with.

www.sciencedirect.com...


Show us this definitive proof. Unless, "There is no other supportable explanation..." is your best explanation?


"There is no other supportable explanation" is neither proof nor explanation, but a simple fact so far. Certainly no other supported explanations have been offered here.

Proof is a subjective colloquial term anyway, it means different things to different people. For example, unless I'm mistaken you feel the internal combustion engine proves creationism lol. Science uses various techniques that seem quite different to yours, to possibly arrive at a consensus, but proves nothing. Facts themselves change all the time in science.

It would be customary regarding a well established scientific theory for the one falsifying it to actually supply said falsification. You have only ever supplied personal beliefs and funny but largely irrelevant analogies based on your particular brand of reasoning. Now you are trying to shift the onus.

Let's see your alternate explanation for the fossil record to begin with (you do accept that it exists I can take it?).



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: whereislogic

You do realise that we have only a fraction of biological forms represented in the fossil record?

What happened to "Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between...."? (quoting peter vlar)


I don't know, you would be better to ask him. I can only agree that the fossil record does show such transition. This seems extremely obvious. You seem to be asking for specific fossils that would satisfy you personally. Lol to that.


Why are you remaining in silent agreement regarding that claim since page 46 including the comment(s) you've made in response to me, almost all of which are a response to that claim?


I don't think I have made a response to you until now and probably haven't read page 46. It is because you are banging on about bat fossils unrealistically. If you think he literally meant that we have every fossil that would convince you personally of an obvious transition between every form, you need to get out more. That would probably require many billions of neatly time spaced fossils all laid out for you. This is quite unrealistic. Yet you believe Jehova is real.


Same questions for noinden's claims regarding genetic correlation. And same thing with the claim that a lack of evidence does not disprove the theory of evolution from dragonridr, which also seems to acknowledge he's well aware that peter vlar's claim is not true ("clear transitions" and "all those steps in between" seems a bit incompatible with "a lack of evidence" as a response to the subject of the evolution of plankton to bats and merely asking for a specific/clear/definitive name* and/or accompanying fossil for just 1 step "in between", the last one before bats; see also my commentary regarding what to expect people can provide after such a claim from peter vlar about the fossil record not even mentioning any organism as an exception to that claim "all those steps in between" "...plankton and todays organisms", not 1 exception like bats, when the storylines with whales which has been described as "best evidence" doesn't even match that description "all those steps in between", and "clear transitions"; referring back to my very first comment about it, but not encouraging to ignore the other subsequent comments, do any of you on your bandwagon ever read back comments? Or read them again to make sure that you don't accidentily twist the points someone is making and end up responding to the twist? Or just to make sure that you gain a better understanding of someone you're responding to? What they're talking about so you don't change the subject accidentily? Or end up playing the red herring distraction debate game accidentily, without it being deliberate?). Go enjoy your bandwagon party some more, you guys remain unconvincing in the manner described on pages 46-48 by me. Not once will you acknowledge something that is true regarding the claims I referred to above. One lie after another, one silent agreement with someone on your bandwagon putting forward a lie/falsehood after another. It's only me you're after, peter vlar, Dawkins and the others can do no wrong and their behaviour must at all times be ignored (that includes the behaviour and way of arguing regarding the word "nothing" for which I shared a video a couple of times; why no response to that when responding to me? In particular the ones I addressed a specific question to regarding that video called "Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something"; which was not just a question to Akragon, it was an open question to the floor which I also said or asked something about before or better yet, this reminder).

You're wasting people's time and destroying their minds and any semblance of rationality they might have had left after this relentless and "persevering use of propaganda" (quoting Adolf Hitler from Mein Kampf, full quotation given before).


Good lord that was difficult. War and Peace much?



2 Timothy 3:1-4

3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,

Why won't you respond to this part of my commentary for example:
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—Henry Gee, paleontologist, senior editor of Nature magazine


So you have provided someone's opinion (without context). Good for him and you. As to bedtime stories, see Timothy 3 whatever.


*: I know it's a while ago that I put the * in, but I mentioned before that I wasn't looking for a general domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order or family name like "panprimates" that describes many different organisms and fossils. A specific/clear/definitive name, just like "bats", in a "clear" manner as promised by peter vlar's claim that nobody objected to.


Are you simply looking for an obvious transitional fossil? (strictly speaking all fossils are transitional). That's not difficult to find if so.

Had to cut much of your post out, word limits.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
Not once will you acknowledge something that is true regarding the claims I referred to above. One lie after another, one silent agreement with someone on your bandwagon putting forward a lie/falsehood after another. It's only me you're after, peter vlar, Dawkins and the others can do no wrong and their behaviour must at all times be ignored (that includes the behaviour and way of arguing regarding the word "nothing" for which I shared a video a couple of times; why no response to that when responding to me? In particular the ones I addressed a specific question to regarding that video called "Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something"; which was not just a question to Akragon, it was an open question to the floor which I also said or asked something about before or better yet, this reminder).



To include "nothing" in a scientific explanation, it's characteristics must be defined. You are confusing it with the philosophical version. The terms "nothing" and "philosophy" do certainly belong together though lol.



edit on 6-12-2017 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
I don't think I have made a response to you until now and probably haven't read page 46.

And that's why it says "comment(s)", the "s" just being there in case I missed one, I was emphasizing 1 comment otherwise I would not have put the "s" like so: "(s)". Thinking about 1 comment, the comment in which you contradict peter vlar's claim that you now claim that you agree with. You continue to talk in contradictions. Your earlier claim regarding the fossil record that I quoted is incompatible with your agreement with peter vlar's claim as peter vlar phrased it. Here's an idea, don't respond to my comments if you don't want to read them back and actually address what I'm talking about and look at the actual facts I'm discussing. Go play the distraction game some other time.

1 Tim 6:20:

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”* (* Latin: "scientia")



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 5StarOracle
I don't need a reward to not act like a dick.



..............really?



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
To include "nothing" in a scientific explanation, it's characteristics must be defined. You are confusing it with the philosophical version.

There's only one version, the english version. "Nothing" is one of the most simple english words to understand the meaning of. It's not "something". And everyone who talks about it as if it is, is lying. Dawkins is lying, Krauss is lying, Hawking is lying, none of these people don't know that "nothing" doesn't mean "something" and that it's not OK to say "not nothing" but "literally nothing" when talking about the same subject in the same sentence. And anyone who can't see the reason in that point has some serious issues with propaganda having affected them by those who continue to use these contradictions in their storytelling and bookselling ventures.
edit on 6-12-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Then define that creator. I mean in a quantifiable manner.

You can not. Like my many gods, your singular, is beyond natural, and thus non detectable.

Why yes indeed one possibility is that a creator set up the system. Though there are some caveats to that

(a) As evolution has been observed (and it has, evidence has been posted here, try reading it), said creator did so several billion years back. Thus, young earth creationist are wrong. This means theological evolution is the answer you gave.
(b) IF one claims (a), but denies evolution, and that “irreducible” complexity is the only answer. And if irreducible complexity states: “that systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection.”, it also holds that your deity, cannot simply “always have been, and always will” and that he was created. Otherwise you must admit that Irreducible complexity, Intelligent design, and thus creationism is a non-scientific principle.
(c) You must admit that there is a possibility that your creator does not exist, and evolution is what is being observed.
Again, I question your training as a chemist, and neuroscientist. You are not exhibiting any of that training. If you are indeed trained in the sciences, I would hazard a guess that it’s a geologist or something non- biological. That would explain a lot.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

True .

If there is a supernatural creator who built the universe, defined the physical laws of the universe, and then set that universe with those laws into motion 13.5 Billion years ago, then evolution could still be valid. That evolution would simply follow the physical laws of the universe as defined by that creator.

Of course, this idea is unknowable and unprovable -- unprovable as being true as well as unprovable as being false.


edit on 6/12/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: whereislogic
From ancient micro organisms to the more advanced forms, all consistent with the geological layers. Instead of harping on about creatures that aren't well represented in the fossil record, can you supply something that refutes this?


Before anyone supplies anything that refutes this, can you supply anything that supports this? Since you believe evolution is fact, it should be no problem to find mounds of evidence that unequivocally demonstrates these evolutionary transitions.

You come in with no new data and typical ad hominems about how dumb everyone is that doesn't believe as you do.

Show us this definitive proof. Unless, "There is no other supportable explanation..." is your best explanation?


Jesus Christ!!! You are a broken record.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: whereislogic

So... Is that a yes?

i asked a simple question and you splater me with this page of text..



That's all he knows how to do. Copy and paste long winded rants completely irrelevant to the topic. He's a one trick pony, just like Coop. Sorry to sound so bitter, I'm just so tired of hearing the same nonsense over and over and over from these clowns.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And thus outside the realm of science, and to be ignored wrt anything scientific.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join