There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

a reply to: Noinden

Of course not... anyone can make a claim on the net

Hell i used to be Santa Claus... but i got sick of milk and cookies

a reply to: Akragon

I'll avoid some jokes that got James Gunn fired over that Santa comment.

But yes, its the interwebs, people claim all sorts of nonsense. I'm dealing with a 30 something "grandmaster of kungfu" elsewhere on the net. I'd give whereislogic more creedence IF they demonstrated basic knowledge in the sciences they claim (lets even start with Chemsitry, the science they claim we share)

a reply to: Akragon
Like making claims about what someone else is supposedly claiming to be, easy to make up.

Or he's just confusing me with someone else. Talking about arrogance, how about re-defining the centuries-old accepted meaning for the word "nothing" to "something" in order to save your failed idea that the universe came from nothing (as done in Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing" and Stephen Hawking's book "The Grand Design" and by Richard Dawkins in the debate below), and then subtly indoctrinating people with the notion that if you accept* that re-definition then you're a "sophisticated physicist" and if not you're a "naive person" (with one subtle phrase used in passing):

Dr. Beckett: "It's embarrassing enough without you constantly reminding us, (thank you)."

*: or silently go along with (without objecting or calling out someone who does that or warning people about that behaviour, or anything of the sorts; like bursting their inflated bubbles of perceived scientific authority, perceived by others that is, especially concerning Stephen Hawking who arguably had the biggest bubble compared to actual experimentally and/or observationally confirmed contributions to the sciences, as per Newton's recommendation regarding what he termed "experimental philosophy" that I quoted in this subforum many times, the methodology that he used to formulate the facts/certainties/truths regarding gravity in the law of gravity among other factual/absolute/truthful/conclusive/certain contributions to the sciences that are accredited to him)

Ah well, might as well share this video now (relevant stuff from 16:10 - 23:04, for those interested):

a reply to: whereislogic


Personally I don't know... I wasn't present in said conversation

Though it seems odd that when religious people come across science based individuals, the religious suddenly become highly educated... happens a lot around here...

Fortunately its hard to fool someone who is actually highly educated in science


And generally... its easy to detect a liar

a reply to: whereislogic
Between brackets is mine:

The Manipulation of Information

“By clever and persevering use of propaganda even heaven can be represented as hell to the people, and conversely the most wretched life as paradise.”—ADOLF HITLER, MEIN KAMPF.

AS MEANS of communicating have expanded—from printing to the telephone, radio, television, and the Internet—the flow of persuasive messages has dramatically accelerated. This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities [see Dawkins' subtle mention of "a sophisticated physicist" vs "a naive person" in the video], by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
...

Source: The Manipulation of Information

2 hours of attempting to create ambiguity concerning the word "nothing" by bending (or twisting, warping) rules of logic and twisting any rational coherent use of language, I do not recommend actually watching this video, just to show it's there and how many are affected (related to a scene in the video called "Toxic Atlantis" I shared earlier at 0:51 - 1:00):

Must You Believe It?

THE 12-year-old student was struggling to grasp the basic principles of algebra. His teacher presented the class with a seemingly straightforward algebraic calculation.

“Let x=y and let them both have the value of 1,” he began.

‘So far so good,’ thought the student.

After four lines of what looked like logical calculation, however, the teacher produced a startling result: “Therefore, 2=1!”

“Disprove that,” he challenged his bemused students.

With his very limited knowledge of algebra, the young student could not see how to disprove it. Every step in the calculation looked perfectly valid. Should he, then, believe this strange conclusion? After all, his teacher was much more versed in mathematics than he was. Of course he should not! ‘I do not have to disprove this,’ he thought to himself. ‘Common sense tells me that this is absurd.’ (Proverbs 14:15, 18) He knew that neither his teacher nor any of his classmates were going to exchange two dollars for one!

In time the algebra student did find the flaw in the computation. Meanwhile, the experience taught him a valuable lesson. Even when someone with vastly superior knowledge presents a carefully crafted and seemingly unassailable argument, a listener need not believe a foolish conclusion simply because he cannot disprove it at the time. The student was actually following a very practical Bible principle found at 1 John 4:1​—not to believe too quickly everything you hear, even when it appears to come from an authoritative source.[whereislogic: see also my signature]

This does not mean that you should stubbornly stick to preconceived ideas. It is a mistake to close your mind to information that could adjust mistaken views. But neither should you be “quickly shaken from your reason” in the face of pressure from someone who claims to have great knowledge or authority. (2 Thessalonians 2:2) The teacher, of course, was merely playing a trick on his students. Sometimes, though, things are not so innocent. People can be extremely “cunning in contriving error.”​—Ephesians 4:14; 2 Timothy 2:14, 23, 24.

Are Experts Always Right?
...
“The Falsely Called ‘Knowledge’”
...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Noinden

Damn... another scientist?

There seems to be a lot of them that hang around these boards

I bow down to the smartieness of those presenting themselves as scientists on this board.

No need for anyone to point out they're not an atheist in response to the video.

a reply to: whereislogic

I bow down to the smartieness of those presenting themselves as scientists on this board.

Yeah?


I don't...

Though I can usually figure out those that actually know what their talking about as opposed to someone that googled a key phrase or word


Same goes for some of you Christians... btw

originally posted by: whereislogic

...the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22

22. Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig [who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants].

David Berlinski mentions something about it as well below:

A little more about mutations and the ever-changing evolutionary storylines:

Groovy man!

So sciency.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

...(lets even start with Chemsitry, ...)

Anyone here interested in chemistry then? How about chemical evolution a.k.a. abiogenesis a.k.a. the "chemical evolution theory of life"?

a reply to: whereislogic

Chemical evolution is the production of gas in a reaction neighbour. If you are implying you want to shoe horn one of the biogenic hypotheses into the discussion. Pick one, discuss it. Don't post a YouTube video. Actually discuss it yourself. Biogensiss is not part of evolutionary theory. We've been over this.

So prove your so called chemical education.

a reply to: Noinden
So you're not interested in saying something about the chemistry subjects discussed in the video, not really a surprise to me. I guess it was warranted for me to first ask:

Anyone here interested in chemistry then? How about chemical evolution a.k.a. abiogenesis a.k.a. the "chemical evolution theory of life"?

Without giving any justification to re-hash your usual argumentation whenever I even dare to mention the easily googled terminology "chemical evolution theory of life"* that you describe as "we've been over this" (*: showing quite well what that term is referring to and the relation to the field of chemistry, since I was responding to your: "lets even start with Chemistry" without intending to defend myself against whatever you read into my commentary that was never there). You've made your usual arguments whenever I bring up the term, sure. But we haven't discussed any of the detailed chemistry that is discussed in the video. You're usually a little too busy steering the discussion in another direction. The direction you're going in your last comment. Anyway, I asked for "anyone here interested...? How about chemical evolution..." Never expected you to be interested in that particular subject in chemistry, you seem to be more interested in me and what I'm doing. Making sure you don't miss anything you can paint in a negative light and even inventing what you need to do that (or read it into my commentary when it's not there; even ridiculously asking me to defend myself against your invented accusations).

chemical evolution

The formation of complex organic molecules (see also organic molecule) from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet. The period of chemical evolution lasted less than a billion years.

Source: dictionary.com

And what does Noinden conveniently do? He switches to another meaning that is completely irrelevant to my clear mention of the "chemical evolution theory of life" in relation to the term "chemical evolution", from wikipedia:

Chemical evolution may refer to:

Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae
Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems [whereislogic: the meaning I used and spelled out]
Evolution of metal ions in biological systems, incorporation of metallic ions into living organisms and how it has changed over time
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
Gas evolution reaction, the process of a gas bubbling out from a solution
Oxygen evolution, the process of generating molecular oxygen through chemical reaction
Astrochemistry, the study of the abundance and reactions of molecules in the Universe, and their interaction with radiation
Cosmochemistry, the study of the chemical compositions in the universe and the processes that led to them

How convenient. As if it wasn't clear in my question and subsequent video that I wasn't referring to that meaning for "chemical evolution", or as if he gets to determin how I am to use the term (no other meaning allowed, especially not the one I clearly used). It's mentioned as "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language" in one of my previous comments about propaganda. I don't expect any of the fans of evolutionary philosophies here willing to be honest about what's going on here but I'd love to be surprised one day.

a reply to: whereislogic

I've discussed that video on here. I note you are still putting youtubes, or cutting and pasting from no academic sources.


But no I did not switch meaning. You are unaware of the many meanings of evolution

Biological evolution is what you are after. There is chemical evolution, there is solar evolution. Evolution just means gradual change. But no you want to be semantic about it.

So you start talking about the science in your words, and I shall engage.

a reply to: Noinden
The "Dumb cop, Dumber cop" video is very interesting. Especially the start of that video where he gives an interesting example, except that the argument there is not that the other person is being semantic about something but that the other person is using an argument from authority, supposedly.

You're going to tell me 'what I'm after' (as you put it)? I was very clear in my comment what subject I was talking about, no need to point out another meaning for the term "chemical evolution" in another vain attempt to seperate the topic of "biological evolution" from "the chemical evolution theory of life", paint the ignorance-picture on me as if I don't know that the word "evolution" is used for many different things (just after me already having shown that for the term "chemical evolution"), and play innocent that you're not trying to avoid the subject I chose to bring up in response to your mention of Chemistry in order to do your usual thing of making this about me rather than discussing some interesting facts in chemistry especially those related to the "chemical evolution theory of life" (a topic that by its very name shows its relevance to this thread and the word "evolution" or my earlier chosen terminology "evolutionary storylines"; which is what you have issues with and the reason for your trickery). As if I'm doing something wrong for calling abiogenesis by its alternate names and terms: "chemical evolution" and "the chemical evolution theory of life". My chosen topic to ask a question about if anyone here is interested in that subject. After already having made plenty of comments about so-called "biological evolution". A term you know very well that I'm well aware of so you're just bringing it up to distract from my question and for your paintjobs.

If you're not interested in "the chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "abiogenesis" a.k.a. "chemical evolution", just say so and don't switch to pretending I'm somehow incorrect in using the term "chemical evolution" by pointing out a different meaning for that term and then accuse me for being semantic about it for merely asking a question using the correct terminologies and refusing to play along with your trickery so you can point out for example that you never actually spelled out I was wrong for asking a question about chemical evolution a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life". And I get suckered into debating that, and so on.

Your tricks need an update, they're getting boring. You don't want to discuss anything interesting, spreading ambiguity and confusion seems to be your main goal here along with the paintjobs. Not really worth the time.

Am I making it about you now? Playing right into your cards of defending myself against one false accusation after another? Let's see, I was shoehorning, I supposedly claimed to be a trained scientist but failed to demonstrate that, I was subtly compared with a "grandmaster of kungfu" elsewhere on the net (without spelling that comparison out, just bringing it up before...), I was accused of not demonstrating basic knowledge in the sciences and I'm supposedly unaware of the many meanings of evolution because I brought up "chemical evolution" in the correct manner and making it clear that I wasn't talking about "the production of gas in a reaction", so there was no need to bring up that meaning for chemical evolution other than to give others the impression I was using the term wrong or that I was shoehorning the subject "into the discussion" for merely asking a question if anyone was interested in it and the chemistry related to it.

So you start talking about the science in your words, and I shall engage.

Subtle, very subtle. What's the matter, am I not contributing to your liking? Not enough "science" as you put it? But you get to make a bunch of comments painting negative stuff on me when I do make a comment containing detailed facts in the relevant sciences such as the ones I posted about "Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one." (quoting Lönnig) Or just an interesting video that might wake some people up from their own mental prisons, for example one where some very interesting facts are mentioned regarding chemistry and chemical evolution for which there is little point in spelling them out for you regarding the way you treat other facts/truths such as the correct/truthful meaning I used for "chemical evolution" and your lack of interest in discussing that subject but preferring to paint it as shoehorning a topic into a discussion when I dare to ask if anyone is interested in response to you bringing up chemistry in the first place.

I ask one measly question about the subject and suddenly I'm supposedly shoehorning it into the discussion among other things I'm supposedly doing wrong for merely mentioning the correct terminology that inconveniently and uncomfortably for you includes the words "...evolution theory...". How about some honesty in acknowledging that one abiogenesis storyline is called the "chemical evolution theory of life"? Are we allowed to say that much about the subject at least? And that the relation to so-called "biological evolution" is described as such on the wikipedia page for abiogenesis:

Following on from chemical evolution came the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells.

Notice how according to that description (not my choice of words), biological evolution is supposedly already happening before the emergence of "the first cells". That's because the overarching argument for both sets of evolutionary storylines is the same: 'nature did it' and it has something to do with wanting to be vague about the lines between what's alive or not at that stage for purposes I won't go into but I am hoping some people will realize on their own. If you need a decent definition for what's alive or not, try the one in this video:

Chapter 7 Section (7.4)

Or start with the context here:
Darwin VS Design Molecular Machines

a reply to: whereislogic

Several major ideas about evolution came together in the population genetics of the early 20th century to form the modern synthesis, including genetic variation, natural selection, and particulate (Mendelian) inheritance.[1] This ended the eclipse of Darwinism and supplanted a variety of non-Darwinian theories of evolution.

The modern synthesis[a] was the early 20th-century synthesis reconciling Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel's ideas on heredity in a joint mathematical framework. Julian Huxley coined the term in his 1942 book, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.

this is the term and the definition, not your chemical evolution which is a strawman misrepresenting the actual theory. naturally the scope of this field will adapt to advances in scientific discovery and methodology as such practices are known to do. it's called the evolution of evolutionary science.

double post

a reply to: TzarChasm

Its also not "Chemical evolution" as he is presenting it. As I pointed out to him Chemical evolution is gas being produced in a reaction. These fundamentalists refused to be consistent with their usage of words.

a reply to: whereislogic

First, congratulations on another Gish Gallop of a post. Your church would be proud.


Chemical evolution as I said is NOT the evolution of life from a chemistry point of view. You (if you have been truthful about your education) should know this. Words have power, and words have meaning. Thus chemical evolution is the production of gas as a reaction progresses, then you might have thermodynamic evolution (heat produced), the universe has certainly evolved, as has the solar system, and the planet we are standing on. Thus you know damned well, evolution can be applied in a bunch of ways.

Your strawman of an argument is as always via a youtube videos. You cited something from WIkipedia. That is not a peer reviewed source of information. It did cite one however, you just were lazy and did not show due dillegnce. But I've cited the actual source for you (1). You read the whole paper right?

We are going to return to the fact that proteoenesis/abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. It is a series of hypotheses. Evolution does not need to include it to be valid. It deals with the changes in life, not how it started. As such eovlution is scientifically valid, and measurable.

(1) Follmann, Hartmut; Brownson, Carol (November 2009). "Darwin's warm little pond revisited: from molecules to the origin of life". Naturwissenschaften. 96 (11): 1265–1292. Bibcode:2009NW.....96.1265F. doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0602-1. ISSN 0028-1042. PMID 19760276.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

Its also not "Chemical evolution" as he is presenting it. As I pointed out to him Chemical evolution is gas being produced in a reaction. These fundamentalists refused to be consistent with their usage of words.

And then there's the repeated insistence that it's the "chemical evolution of life Theory" which anyone who has taken high school biology and chemistry knows is bull s@@@ as Panspermia and Abiogenesis are not Scientific Theories and are merely hypothesis and it has nothing to do with the MES or biological evolution. So having a legit background in chemistry isn't very likely unless it's from the same school that you can obtain a Doctorate of Divinity for just $149.99 no defense of dissertation necessary so long as the check clears!

At this point it's pretty standard to run a Gish Gallop at high speed while tossing out ad homonyms like hand grenades to make sure people are so caught up with the litany of arguments and false equivalencies that they're distracted from the fact that the person they're replying to is simply having a laugh at their expense.

a reply to: peter vlar

Least we forget throw in some YouTube videos to try and seem knowledgeable about a subject. Any smuck with a camera can publish on YouTube. A peer reviewed paper? It harder to sneak BS in there (not impossible).

I'm glad I shared the "Dumb Cop, Dumber Cop" video. So people can see how spot on some people on youtube can be.

The ad hominem accusation now is so appropiate in comparison with the examples in that video.

I take it I can wait till the mythical notions of a burning hell freeze over before anyone here is willing to be honest that "chemical evolution" may refer to "abiogenesis" as wikipedia puts it (and as spelled out by me initially how I was using the term). Or that people also use the term the "chemical evolution theory of life" to refer to the same subject (easy to google and acknowledge for anyone willing to be honest about it, one can see who's using the term and how they define it, there simply is nothing to debate about, I didn't do anything wrong by quoting the terms in that manner, referring to their way of using those terms). Regardless of its relation to biological evolution supposedly being non-existent or not (a debate I didn't raise in my simple question using the correct appropiate terminologies, didn't claim any relation to biological evolution in that question, still some people are very keen in arguing there is no relation by saying for example that chemical evolution "has nothing to do with...biological evolution", just for daring to mention "chemical evolution"; don't need an actual exsuse to bring it up apparently, I entered the 'no go'-zone; and Noinden nicely set-up that debate by bringing up another meaning for "chemical evolution" and refusing to use that term for abiogenesis, even changing that latter term to 2 different terminologies in 2 different comments, just to obscure and distract some more, but I'm the one accused of arguing semantics?).

The dishonesty of those trying to steer the discussion in another direction than simply acknowledging what I mentioned above is taking on such proportions that it remains my strongest convincing factor that evolutionary storylines like the "chemical evolution theory of life" and the parts in "biological evolution" that concern "macroevolution" and the common ancestry of all living organisms remain reserved for the flock to believe in, ready to figuratively burn any heretic at the stake by character assassination.

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts.
...
“‘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.”

Source: The Manipulation of Information