The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Like I said before you don't want scientific evidence. You are here to troll for your deity.

Dude is that all you got because you keep saying it, it's weak sauce, step up or step out.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Grimpachi

Like I said before you don't want scientific evidence. You are here to troll for your deity.

Dude is that all you got because you keep saying it, it's weak sauce, step up or step out.

This is the issue the thread introduced
Can creation be considered against the evolution argument

I don’t think that creation and evolution can be compared but

I think that anybody who sincerely questions the science of evolution has a more than serious issue to be confronted

Grims argument is atypical, don’t address the real issue, the science of evolution, attack and generally spoil anyone who questions evolution

I think I have shown very clearly it’s not about pushing a creation agenda but questioning the faith and pseudoscience that is evolution.
Exposing the lie is exposing and calling people into questioning their faith in science and man, mankind, those who falsify their findings

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I keep saying it because it is true.

There have been actual scientists on here that have been more than willing to explain things to you lot. They have been willing to go step by step with you. The times it has happened you lot scatter like roaches like you are afraid to be enlightened.

When you refuse to even use proper definitions of words because it goes against your perceived reality then every time you say you want evidence you are lying.

a reply to: Grimpachi

What is the point of all this explaining? What does it add to my life besides nothing?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You can't claim to want evidence or answers if you refuse to listen.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Sure, when it comes to evolution there's no reason to listen for me. I see no benefit in the theory.

Back to drinking coffee.

Call me down to earth.

Religionism is the intent to confuse and make war.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Nah, there are those posting on ATS that say they don't believe in God or religion but also don't believe in evolution either because the math, chemistry, biologically and cosmology doesn't fit their world view concept either, they are certainly not trolling for a deity. And they don't care about boxed scientific terms, that you dogmatically cling to.
They are what I consider the scientific centrists of our two sides.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It's sad to see creationists and evolutionists as two opposing sides. It's more intelligent to see evolutionists as leeches upon a dead body of religion.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

And they don't care about boxed scientific terms

You mean definitions. If your case is dependent on making up definitions in order to make a point then you have already lost.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

And they don't care about boxed scientific terms

You mean definitions. If your case is dependent on making up definitions in order to make a point then you have already lost.

They....not me, have lost nothing but are furthering their knowledge without conceptual restrictions such as those placed on the correlation between Abiogenesis and macro-evolution, they continue to expand there knowledge not locked into the trap. They may or may not discover an answer based on true science, not the op-ed type that everybody pats each other on the backs and says "peer reviewed" so it must be true.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

It's more intelligent to see evolutionists as leeches upon a dead body of religion.

I find this to be a very interesting comment, it seems you feel both parties are in the wrong, care to share your perspective?

a reply to: edmc^2

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

No, I don't think both parties are in the wrong, it's just that one can't be without the other.

originally posted by: edmc^2

wow! talk about 'argument from authority'. ...

Don't forget about argumentum ad populum. Which comes in many different names, for example: appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy*, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy.

*: when in this case the implied consensus doesn't even exist (depending on how one considers or looks at the phrase Woodcarver used); if we're talking about the field of biology alone, there are already plenty of biologists out there who don't agree with or accept "evolution theory" (quoting the terminology in the OP, since that was what Woodcarver was responding to). Counting the field of biology as one of the "multiple fields of study" that are relevant to this topic, rather than cherry-picking only those fields of study conducted exclusively by proponents of evolutionary ideas and storylines. Since that would be a bit circular and conveniently biased doing that or quickly switching to that argument that only those type of fields were meant by these "multiple fields of study". Nicely unspecific, leaving the door open to argue for such fields as anthropology rather than biology; which would be a moot point to now say one was only talking about such fields as anthropology or evolutionary biology. "Evolution theory" is their bread and butter, most of the times, you'll have to wait until they retire before they start saying anything objectionable to their own (type of) money-making scams. Although there are exceptions, but then the objections will usually not go into much detail about their own (lack of) contributions to the sciences, usually it's others they disagree with regarding the finer details of evolutionary theories; which raises another issue regarding there being no consensus regarding these finer details either amongst evolutionists themselves, and they are kinda important in terms of evaluation of the overarching evolutionary storyline. Even if you just take biological evolution from a so-called "simple" unicellular lifeform to all that is alive today, including the remarkable human family; which is the main overarching storyline but then there are different storylines with different evolutionary family trees and proposed mechanisms or causes.

The term 'authority of the many' nicely combines the terms 'argument from authority' and 'appeal to majority'. Although I don't think it was meant that way (not referring to a supposed scientific authority, but as said in the term, the authority of the many). How I would like to use the term would then become the 'scientific authority of the many', such as in the phrase shown in the video below at 2:06: "95% of scientists can't be wrong".

Of course, in defense, one could always argue that one was merely mentioning these things Woodcarver mentioned and not using it as an appeal to a majority of authority, or argument by consensus of this authority ("what multiple fields of study all agree on", supposedly "evolution theory", quoting from the OP. Which then leaves only those fields of study entirely setup and run by evolutionists; so yeah, duh, they agree on the evolution theory that claims that we evolved "from the world of the fish and the frog", quoting a line from the other thread where I spoke about the “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS). While others quickly jump to the accusation of someone using an argument from authority when someone is merely quoting a scientific 'authority'* (including the most prominent evolutionists like Dawkins or Dobzhansky) on a specific pertinent subject, but it happens to be something the accuser doesn't want to hear, doesn't tickle their ears, doesn't want to acknowledge and doesn't even want to discuss in detail.

*: at least perceived and treated as such by many colleagues, and influential regarding what is taught to students

a reply to: strongfp

Youtubers AronRa and Thunderf00t? Thar's your recommendation as our go-to source of accurate honest information regarding the creation-evolution controversy?

Still think prominent evolutionists like Dobzhansky, Dawkins and Muller have more interesting things to say when their statements and occasional acknowledgements are surmised through the lens of those who disagree with their views rather than the marketing guys like AronRa and Thunderf00t catering to their market with youtube videos and trying to get as many views and subscribers as they can by picking the bigger market. The clever choice for the type of business they are engaged in. Telling their market what they want to hear, tickling their ears.

I don't know if you already realize, but I'm mentioning it anyway, if you're not part of their market, their videos have the opposite effect as the effect intended for their market. To some, the game they're playing even becomes more obvious when seeing their videos. They just don't work as well in that scenario in promoting or marketing evolutionary storylines and argumentation based on philosophical naturalism, atheism, agnosticism and/or various anti-creation sentiments. Cause they are designed to cater to their specific market, make them feel intellectually superior for agreeing with those videos, nurturing and playing on their carefully developped intellectual superiority complex (i.e. their pride and fear of seeming stupid if not jumping on the same bandwagon of thinking and fear of developing any way of thinking that even remotely resembles that which is being ridiculed on such channels).

a reply to: whereislogic

Those youtubers were fighting creationism before yt added ad revenue. And were outspoken about it. Aaron even gave his most famous works out for free until he was told he could make money off it, so why not capitalize on it a bit.

a reply to: strongfp

I was actually reminded of a South Park scene with Kyle explaining to Stan how Crack Baby Basketball is OK to sell to the public, but instead I found this scene that also says something interesting about giving things away for free:

a reply to: edmc^2

Neighbor. You are missing the point.


The rules are dictated by the idea of burdon of proof.
There is no winner. There never has been here.
Th Criteria is either that of intellectual knowledge (εἶδειν eídein), in that you must prove what you say, or spiritual knowledge (γνῶσις, gnōsis, f.) where you can just say you feel that it is so. Intellectual knowledge is applied only to science, and spiritual knoweldge to matters spiritual. That is logic. QED
There are no judges.
Evolutionist is not a thing.
Science is data based. Religion has no data.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Jubei42

Meanwhile basically all fields of science fully accept evolution and csnt even begin to attempt to think of antithesis.

I see Woodcarver's terminology of "multiple fields of study" has already turned into "basically all fields of science" in the imagination of some people. So what about the major fields of science pertinent to this subject: biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics? I guess when most people read "basically all fields of science" they would tend to think it includes those major fields, yet in all of those fields you can find plenty of scientists who do not agree with or accept "evolution theory" (term from the OP). Even if it was just a majority of scientists in those fields that "accept evolution" as you put it, that still wouldn't justify the broad sweeping statement that the entire field(s) 'accepts evolution'. A field of science can't really 'accept' in that sense anyway, individuals do; and particular cliques of individuals within that field of science do.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: strongfp

Science accepts evolution ...

Really? Or is that some scientists accept evolution(ary ideas as at least a plausible causal explanation for certain natural phenomena pertaining to the "origin of species", as Darwin put it), and others don't?

If that's the more accurate description of the current situation, does that warrant the phrase "science accepts evolution"? That might give the wrong impression. One could argue about a majority of scientists, possibly within a particular field. But should the word "science" (from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge", which essentially means a familiarity with facts) really be used in such a generalizing broad sense as in the phrase "science accepts evolution"?

I think it's quite misleading to think of it that way. The knowledge/science, or familiarity with the facts that I possess, certainly does not lead me to the conclusion that evolutionary ideas adequately (sufficiently) and accurately (truly, correctly) explain the origin of species, or as I would say, the origin of all major kinds of life and the proposed evolutionary transitions between the major divisions of life such as fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, man and animal.

"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)

Vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? (obviously not a rhetorical question for you, since I know your position on this) As one can see in some of the other threads where I discussed the fossil record or if one looks into it themselves, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.” (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 111.) For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: “Special creation.” Proper use* of inductive reasoning leads to that conclusion.

*: as it should be used in the sciences. The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"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. ..."

Well, that doesn't count for paleoanthropology and evolutionary biology. The people working in those fields tend to spit on any inductive reasoning, argument of induction or conclusion drawn by induction that has anything to do with the act of creation or engineering in regards to an explanation of the origin of the machinery and technology we're observing in living systems. The only logical proposed explanation (proposition) that is both true and sufficient (for me*) to explain their appearance and emergence on the scene. But these fields probably shouldn't be regarded as part of "the sciences" anyway, so the description from the Encyclopaedia Britannica all works out in the end.

*: it fits the facts, the evidence, it's where the evidence leads to when applying inductive reasoning appropiately, it's what the evidence points towards; unlike the evolutionary propositions I tend to come across, that most of the times actually contradict or conveniently leave out contradicting facts or facts that lead to a contradictory conclusion when common sense or inductive reasoning is properly applied. They tend to fly in the face of reason. I don't have to think too long or hard about where machinery and technology comes from or what logical minimum requirements it leads to (in any proposed causal explanation). The same counts for what proposed causes can't produce machinery and technology. In part because they are well "established facts" that help me reach a conclusion regarding those topics, to quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Humans are btw the major known cause for producing machinery of a certain level of technology. Which brings us to the minimum logical requirements concerning the topics of intelligence (of a particular level and type), knowledge, technological know-how, foresight (regarding the subtopics of purpose and planning) and will. Among other things, all things that (the forces of) nature, or chance (processes), does (do) not have. So these latter proposed causal factors don't fit the bill. A Creator with superior attributes (to humans) in all those areas does fit the bill.






Perhaps some people feel like thinking about the minimum logical requirements for setting up this sort of "Automated Machine Design & Manufacture" and having it do its "intended function" (some clues are already in the expression "setting up" and "intended function", the latter quotation is from the video below that):


I think the biomolecular world provides the best evidence for creation* and against evolution. *: and more specifically, the process of engineering as proposed causal factor, the mechanism that explains the origin or emergence of this biomolecular machinery if you will. To propose that it happened 'by chance', or "by accident", as evolutionists do (or sometimes imply but refuse to spell out or even acknowledge), sounds rather outrageous to me. It also flies in the face of everything I know about entropy and decay, order to disorder (by things such as time and weathering in a realistic natural environment).