Why Most Evolutionists Don’t BELIEVE in Evolution?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: edmc^2

You seem to be a bit hung up on Evolution. You are free to believe what you want, so if you don't want to believe in Evolution then feel free not to. You can chose to be a creationist, an evolutionist, any ..ist you want to be.

I happen to think/guess/assume that maybe its possible that God created evolution. It makes me really appreciate him if he did. It's like he is a great artist/creator. He created the mechanism for life, dna/evolution, unleashed it and sat back and watched his creation create unlimited combinations. It's much like the universe.. random actions under the laws of physics creates unlimited variations of outcomes.. each one different and beautiful in its own way.

The cycle of creation, destruction, replacement is magnificent. I can imagine God sitting back and watching his creation unfold before his eyes as he sees it through the eye of the great artist that he is.

And he is just a word. I doubt God has a pronoun, but its easier for this mere human to say he/him.

I got what you're saying, so what word should be used then instead of "belief"?

I would think the word(s) in my case would be "I think" or "I hope" or "I theorize". I am not quite so stupid to think that "I know" that anything is for sure. Everything is my perception of what my senses say is happening around me. For all I know the entire universe and my existence could be an illusion designed to see what choices I make under various stimuli given the data stored in my brain as a frame of reference.

Hence the conundrum.

How could you accept something that you don't believe in?

That's easy. Science is not a religion. Science is research and data collection. Another stupid question from the lame, lazy and crazy crowd. Why don't you take up golf or something less stressful than science? With a negative number for an IQ, maybe golf isn't good either.

Does this mean then you don't believe in science too?

I guess so.

Once again, science is not a belief system. It is pragmatic and objective. It is research and data.

You have a hard time with the English language. Religions are belief systems - they rely on faith without evidence. I have no objection to that. It's whatever makes people happy - as long as they're not pushing lies and deceit the way you are.

Your creationist cult is neither a religion nor a science. It is a cult of evil. You are prostituting evil.

ok then, just making sure you don't BELIEVE in evolution and science.

As is far too often for he case with your posts, you try to make a game out of semantics while you sit back smugly grinning at how clever you are with your Palin-esque ‘gotcha-isms’.

There is a massive chasm between your quaint little game of ‘where lies your belief system’ and how science actually works. All one needs to do is understand how the scientific method works and what the difference is between a Scientific Theory and a layman’s theory. The layman’s theory doesn’t even meet the criteria for a Scientific Hypothesis in most cases. The Scientific Method used to understand the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (not darwinism or evolutionism) is the same one used to understand Chemistry or Physics, Geology or Biology. It’s funny how nobody ever questions Chemistry or Cell Theory for example, let alone with the degree of veracity that they attack the MES. The only reason for this is that some people can’t reconcile evolution with their personal religious proclivities so at the end of the day, they aren’t really debating the science behind evolution. They’re all in a tizzy because they think that evolution is just atheism hiding behind science despite the large number of high profile scientists who are devoutly religious yet understand science enough to realize that the evidence for the evolution far outweighs literally every other scientific theory since the beginning of Scientific inquiry.

It's not "Palin-esque ‘gotcha-isms’." Pete, it's called a conundrum.

A conundrum for whom? Certainly not for me. And if you’re unwilling to be honest about your end game, then there isn’t much point in attempting to engage in any sort of dialogue with you. Regardless of how
Much you try to candy coat for t, that’s exactly what you’re doing.

If you know that something is true, then you believe it's true. There's really nothing wrong with using the word believe when it comes to evolution.

Whatever you say Ed! What I KNOW is how the scientific method works. How the evidence is gathered and the difference between a personal belief and what a Scientific Theory is.

For those in need of a quick refresher, a layman Theory is the equivalent of when Scooby-Doo, Shaggy, Fred, Daphne and Velma get a hunch and go after the bad guys based on their guy feeling.

A Scientific Theory on the other hand, can’t exist without facts to interpret. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is built and based upon cold, hard facts that are both testable and repeatable. Santa is a belief. Easter bunny, tooth fairy,
Elves, the Jersey Devil... people believe in those because they want to. They believe in them because others have convinced them via personal anecdotes. They don’t however believe in them because of overwhelming evidence that can be corroborated.

I don’t believe in the MES. I understand it because I understand the scientific method and how the data has been collected and analyzed. I understand how it works because of my own work and research pertaining to Paleoanthropology. If I merely “believed” then I would own up to it and say so. The facts

So, I'm just pointing the fact and the problem facing evolutionists as to how to elucidate, expound, explicate, delineate, clarify, testify their "belief" in evolution.

I don’t know what an “evolutionist” is but the way you do see it,’the term comes across as a petty slur because you feel it contradicts your religious views. As for any “problems” facing J.T. those who understand science... well that’s your cross to bare not mine. I think I articulated my position pretty clearly. You just refuse to accept that because it doesn’t fall into the category of you bullying led into agreeing with your personal views.

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
...
It appears to me your intent is to prove your belief system gives you some kind of spiritual edge over others that don't share your philosophy.

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
― James A. Shapiro (Professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago; believer in and promoter of alternate evolutionary philosophies and storylines as "science", I can't quite say an alternate "philosohical belief system" cause it still boils down to the same 'nature did it'-philosophy/notion/idea/belief/opinion, it still adheres to philosophical naturalism, it's just a minor variation on that general storyline regarding the causal explanation for the origin of species)

originally posted by: Phantom423

... Another stupid question from the lame, lazy and crazy crowd. Why don't you take up golf or something less stressful than science? With a negative number for an IQ, maybe golf isn't good either.
...
You have a hard time with the English language. ... as long as they're not pushing lies and deceit the way you are.

Your creationist cult is neither a religion nor a science. It is a cult of evil. You are prostituting evil.

originally posted by: peter vlar

As is far too often for he case with your posts, you try to make a game out of semantics while you sit back smugly grinning at how clever you are with your Palin-esque ‘gotcha-isms’.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're an idiot. And an evil one.

originally posted by: peter vlar

... And if you’re unwilling to be honest about your end game, then there isn’t much point in attempting to engage in any sort of dialogue with you. Regardless of how
Much you try to candy coat for t, that’s exactly what you’re doing.
...You just refuse to accept that because it doesn’t fall into the category of you bullying led into agreeing with your personal views.

Proverbs 15:28

The heart of the righteous one meditates before answering,* [Or “carefully considers how to answer; thinks before speaking.”]

But the mouth of the wicked blurts out bad things.

Thanks for the demonstration, but I'm sincerely hoping one day you may want to consider a different approach. After all:

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.
...
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.
...
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.
...
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 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.” [“sect” is actually another word for “cult”, i.e. a synonym]

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000 (between brackets was mine)

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.

Source: article in my signature

Regarding the last bolded phrase: you're just making it way too easy to recognize (laying it on way too thick). Someone like Dawkins is way more subtle and cunning about it. As demonstrated below in the appeals to pride and reverse appeals to pride that play on our fear of seeming stupid, “naive”, or not “sophisticated” enough to understand or accept his and Lawrence Krauss' contradictory way of using the word “nothing”, in the phrase: “whether or not it's what a naive person would conceive as nothing, or what a sophisticated physicist would consider to be nothing, ...”:

Proverbs 29:11

A stupid person gives vent to all his feelings,*[Lit., “spirit.”]
But the wise one calmly keeps them in check.

Some more from the same chapter:

A man who stiffens his neck* [Or “who remains stubborn.”] after much reproof
Will suddenly be broken beyond healing.
...
8 Boastful men inflame a town,
But those who are wise turn away anger.
9 When a wise man enters into a controversy with a fool,
There will be ranting and ridicule, but no satisfaction.
...
20 Have you seen a man hasty with his words?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
...
23 The haughtiness of a man will humble him,
But whoever is humble in spirit will obtain glory.
...
27 An unjust man is detestable to the righteous,
But the one whose way is upright is detestable to the wicked one.

a reply to: edmc^2

Do you BELIEVE in gravity? Do you BELIEVE in germs? Do you BELIEVE in cells?

Nope. We know they are real things because they have been observed and tested, just like evolution.

No faith needed when something is as evidenced as that. It's like claiming you need faith to think the sun exists. Evolution is knowledge. Certain people deny it but can never justify their claims.

Look at you... can't hold up a logical argument in other threads so you claim victory there and make a new thread all about semantics of the word "belief", so you can avoid addressing the logical fallacies of your flawed creationist arguments...

... insinuating that "believing" in evolution, somehow makes evolution a "belief" system... playing silly buggers with definitions, inferring that there isn't a difference between "belief"' based on factual evidence and "belief" based on faith alone.

You are creating a false conundrum by suggesting that "believing" a verifiable fact is the same as "believing" a story.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
Look at you... can't hold up a logical argument in other threads so you claim victory there and make a new thread all about semantics of the word "belief", so you can avoid addressing the logical fallacies of your flawed creationist arguments...

... insinuating that "believing" in evolution, somehow makes evolution a "belief" system... playing silly buggers with definitions, inferring that there isn't a difference between "belief"' based on factual evidence and "belief" based on faith alone.

You are creating a false conundrum by suggesting that "believing" a verifiable fact is the same as "believing" a story.

What are you talking about? I'm just stating the fact that MOST evolutionists don't believe in evolution in that to them the word BELIEVE connotes FAITH. So, they don't believe in evolution.

It's a simple fact shown by this thread.

In fact, allow me to illustrate it again to YOU:

Answer this simple question - Do you BELIEVE in evolution?

a reply to: peter vlar

A conundrum for whom? Certainly not for me.

Well, I'm glad it's not for you. But the fact still remains - most or should I say many "evolutionists" or if you prefer (so as not to insult your sensibility - although no intention to do so) PROPONENTS OF EVOLUTION are very uncomfortable of USING the word BELIEVE when it comes to evolution. Hence they avoid it.

But just to be clear, if you are confident in saying you BELIEVE in evolution, then you're one of the exceptions, not the norm.

As I said, I'm merely stating the fact.


BTW - this is similar to the reluctance of saying MIND. Most PROPONENTS OF EVOLUTION (EVOLUTIONISTS), avoid using the word MIND when describing thoughts. The use BRAIN instead of MIND.

a reply to: whereislogic

This relates to my comment linked above (click accountname for the comment in case you don't know how that works on ATS) and contains a clue regarding the question in the thread title (which is also addressed in the comment above, John Lennox just has a slightly alternate way of putting some things I mentioned as well, and a different approach to addressing the behaviour and argumentation- and conflation-routine I mentioned). But I don't want to give away any spoilers. For some inclined to do so, try not to get too upset and/or distracted from the point related to the concept of "belief/faith" or "believing/having faith" (synonyms) with and/or by the title of the video:

Notice that Dawkins at the end there admits to having faith based on evidence, demonstrating that such faith exists. Thus contradicting his own argument and conflation-routine that all faith/belief is always blind (not based on evidence or rationality, believing without proper or scientific evidence or proper or scientific justification) or his argument in that part of the debate that "we only need to use the word faith when there isn't any evidence", as expressed so many times in this thread, including by some who believe in creation and/or profess to be Christians if I remember correctly or possibly if Raggedyman made any comments in this thread depending on what he exactly said to facilitate this supposed contrast between belief/faith and science or the ways a scientist would think and reason or have to think and reason if following the so-called "scientific method" (I guess John Lennox would not describe these people as "serious Christians", see context in the video).

Note also that "think" is a synonym for "believe". Here are a couple of others that won't make much of a difference* if you swap out "believe" with them (some of which also being used for that purpose in this thread by those who don't like to admit that they "believe" in evolution or like to make a major difference between these words, contrasting them in order to justify such behaviour in themselves or others, for reasons discussed in my comment linked above related to not wanting people to realize that belief in evolution, the type that involves the topic of common descent for example, is blind, not based on valid evidence but arguments and storylines designed to sound reasonable and plausible in the eyes of the biased beholder that wants to believe in this type of evolution, whether or not they want to admit such a belief or any sort of belief or not):

accept
admit
conclude
consider
hold
regard
suppose
understand
[different color scheme indicating a bit more difference in meaning]
take it
...
MORE RELATED WORDS FOR BELIEVE

apprehend verb understand

...
accept
...
believe
...
comprehend
...
know

Source: Believe Synonyms, Believe Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

*: except in the perception of the beholder, for them it makes a difference, especially if they have been indoctrinated with the notion that there is a major contrast in these words, significant enough to ridicule "believe" and prop up "know/accept" in relation to how they think and how others would perceive their rationality based on their comment about it, as well as the rationality of those who dare to admit they "believe" in God's existence, Creation and the truths/facts/certainties/realities explained in the Bible, or the rationality of those perceived to believe as such without proper or scientific evidence; and in relation to being afraid to be associated in any way with that last category of people or perceived as such, which in turn relates to the appeals to pride and reverse appeals to pride that play on our fear of seeming stupid, gullible, irrational, incompetent in regards to logic, reason and honesty with ourselves or others, etc., that I've spoken about before in the context of propaganda.
(is Barcs around? He 'loves' such long sentences of mine, ahum. Not going to make me seperate that sentence into multiple though, it's all connected.)

Ah darn, now I've given away spoilers anyway. Btw, the hints that these were synonyms, can also be found in my commentary, cause I used them interchangeably, notice for example how I used the concept of "conclude" or "conclusion(s)" in my commentary closely to a remark about "believe/faith" or "believe" or "think". Also note that "synonym" doesn't mean that is has to mean the exact same thing. A synonym is "one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses." (definition from Merriam-Webster)

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (between brackets is mine to clarify)

Let no one deceive himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool [as the world may see it], so that he may become wise [in reality, truly wise and as God would see it]. 19 For the wisdom of this world [as the world sees it] is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men [perceived as wise by the world, like Dawkins and those following the conflation-routine I've been talking about] are futile.”

Hmm, I'll do that again without my commentary cause I feel I added too much for clarification:

Let no one deceive himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, so that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.”

a reply to: edmc^2

If you are talking faith-based belief, then NO, scientists do not "believe" in evolution. If you are talking fact-based belief, then YES, scientists do "believe" in evolution.

The answer is yes or no depending on the context of the "belief" that you choose to apply.

So which do you mean?... YOU ARE NOT BEING CLEAR! (I suspect purposefully, because you are a creationist... unless you are really so dense that you don't understand that there are multiple meanings to words?... my 6 year old nephew understands that!)... so why are you being purposefully obtuse?

I don't believe I have to break down the meanings of "belief" in order to expose your dishonesty.

I believe (1) in verifiable facts. So yes, I believe in the verifiable facts of evolution. This is fact based belief.

I also believe (2) that evolutionary research will continue to discover new facts with a high level of certainty... this is a different type of belief than (1), as it is inferred, not 100% verifiable... however, this belief (2) is a prediction based on the logical progression of existing verifiable facts. This is probability based belief.

I also believe (3) that with continued inquiry and experimentation we will eventually confirm a mechanism for the genesis of life, and I suspect it will not be magic, then we will understand at least one possible avenue for the path from inorganic matter to consciousness. This is un-evidenced based belief, or in terms of religion, a faith based belief.

If scientists (evolutionist is not a word, and further proves the derogatory nature of your attempts at discrediting the scientific fact of evolution) try not to use the word "believe" when discussing evolution with creationists, it is exactly because of the semantic word play that the OP is displaying. Creationists like to purposefully misinterpret words like belief to fit their narrative.

PS. I'm not going to give only a "yes" or "no" answer... I prefer long-form answers rather than the short-form "simple yes or no" that you keep opining for, when talking to creationists, as it helps to avoid the misinterpretations that creationists purposefully apply to short-form answers.

Sky wizard says its not how he did it.

Belief is stronger than fact to the simple.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

If you are talking faith-based belief, then NO, scientists do not "believe" in evolution. If you are talking fact-based belief, then YES, scientists do "believe" in evolution.

The answer is yes or no depending on the context of the "belief" that you choose to apply.

So which do you mean?... YOU ARE NOT BEING CLEAR! (I suspect purposefully, because you are a creationist... unless you are really so dense that you don't understand that there are multiple meanings to words?... my 6 year old nephew understands that!)... so why are you being purposefully obtuse?

I don't believe I have to break down the meanings of "belief" in order to expose your dishonesty.

I believe (1) in verifiable facts. So yes, I believe in the verifiable facts of evolution. This is fact based belief.

I also believe (2) that evolutionary research will continue to discover new facts with a high level of certainty... this is a different type of belief than (1), as it is inferred, not 100% verifiable... however, this belief (2) is a prediction based on the logical progression of existing verifiable facts. This is probability based belief.

I also believe (3) that with continued inquiry and experimentation we will eventually confirm a mechanism for the genesis of life, and I suspect it will not be magic, then we will understand at least one possible avenue for the path from inorganic matter to consciousness. This is un-evidenced based belief, or in terms of religion, a faith based belief.

If scientists (evolutionist is not a word, and further proves the derogatory nature of your attempts at discrediting the scientific fact of evolution) try not to use the word "believe" when discussing evolution with creationists, it is exactly because of the semantic word play that the OP is displaying. Creationists like to purposefully misinterpret words like belief to fit their narrative.

PS. I'm not going to give only a "yes" or "no" answer... I prefer long-form answers rather than the short-form "simple yes or no" that you keep opining for, when talking to creationists, as it helps to avoid the misinterpretations that creationists purposefully apply to short-form answers.

An interesting conundrum indeed!

To believe or not to believe, that is the question.

Congrats though as you're one of the few who profess faith in evolution.

But just to be clear, by your revelation above, evolution is based on a belief system with varying degrees.

Correct?

Or am I wrong?

a reply to: edmc^2

You are wrong. This is not a conundrum.

There is a level of belief (1) that is fact based, and in no way is a belief system, unless you consider reality itself and believing in facts to be a belief system? (but that is awfully meta-physical, and takes the discussion into philosophy... which it seems you keep trying to do... so isn't belief (1)).

Even belief (2) doesn't constitute a belief system, as it is probability based, and without verifiable facts to derive probabilities from, isn't believable... so not a belief system.

You could say that belief (3) is a belief system, because it is faith based (like religion)... but this now comes down to weighting and importance. Essentially, how much stock do I put in belief (3), over other potential beliefs (3)?...

Very little.

... and do I really believe any of them?

I believe (3) lots of things at this level... many contradictory, because there are no verifiable facts associated with faith... and anything is really possible.

For instance here's 5 (of many) possibilities that I believe (3), for varying reasons and to varying levels, in no particular order.

• Some type of Star Maker who is making universes, one of which is ours, where the purpose of the universe is for consciousness to "experience" and combine across the galaxies to some ultimate point trillions of years in the future, where the "universe" has "experienced" enough to combine with the experiences of the other Star Maker universes, to contribute to some unfathomable purpose of understanding all possibilities of existence. (Something like this is probably my favorite belief (3)).
  
• A systematic universe, where inorganic matter coalesces into life and evolves. (This is simple and doesn't have many embellishments... if there is no ultimate purpose to the universe... this would be the one).
  
• The Flying Spaghetti Monster (because it would be he greatest practical joke on humanity if it were true!... lol).
  
• The Douglas Adams universe. (PLEASE LET THE UNIVERSE WORK LIKE THIS!!!... PLEASE!!!).
  
• Something like what Paul Davies suggests in his writings. (Not my favorite belief (3) but definitely has a plausibility to it).
  

So, no, evolution is not a belief system, because it has verifiable facts.

You can believe (3) in evolution (I don't particularly over other beliefs (3))... but belief (3) in evolution is really just the most logical extension of the facts to date, so is more of an assumption than a belief system. A belief system suggests that it guides my life in some way, and scientists (unless religious) don't really do that, because shown proof of the contrary, will change their belief (3).

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

... Interesting they took a bacteria or virus and had it in a petri dish, they fed it the only thing it eats (can't remember the details) lets say sugar.

They then changed the diet of this creature to something that previously was poison to it, slowly and within a short time it lived off this new food. ...

You might want to check if your description of these experiments do not give a misleading impression regarding the topic of "evolution" you discussed in the context that I didn't repeat above (or evolutionary philosophies as I would say, that's what I'm always referring to when I use the word "evolution" in such a context):

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2
...
Even belief (2) doesn't constitute a belief system, ...

That made me laugh, like "nothing isn't nothing anymore...in physics" (Lawrence Krauss)?

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

Or more like "by nothing I don't mean nothing" (Lawrence Krauss, quoted at 6:10 above, followed by the other quotation mentioned further above)?

1 Timothy 6:20,21 (adding some synonyms behind the /):

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/science.” 21 By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith/belief.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.

The King James Version has "science" at the end of verse 20, from the Latin "scientia".

a reply to: whereislogic

Great work YouTube warrior!

You just posted a creationists opinion of why this experiment doesn't show evolution, with zero citations or facts to back up his erroneous views, and many known fallacies in his arguments.

This is the weakest attempt at a debunking that I've ever seen (probably why you didn't post a description of the video, as you often do... because it is baloney... and you need to slyly trick people into watching it.).

If he's correct, then he should be able to write a viable, referenced counter argument to the research and get it peer reviewed and published... but he can't... instead, he makes a YouTube video and claims victory!.. so other deluded creationists can re-post and feel validated in their un-provable fantasies.

a reply to: whereislogic

Cherry pick it why don't you... that would be belief (3) that you are referring to.

As always, deceptive and dishonest.

from merriam webster

semantics
noun, plural in form but singular or plural in construction
se·​man·​tics | si-ˈman-tiks
Definition of semantics
1 : the study of meanings:
a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
b(1) : SEMIOTICS
(2) : a branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

from urban dictionary

Semantics
An argument, or a type of guarantee that the outcome of your statement can be taken in two or more ways which will benefit you in either way it’s perceived. The *careful* use of semantics can be applied to situations which allow you to be right in any reverse query.

in a few simple words, the debate equivalent of being a grammar nazi, typically employed when actual reason has failed to settle the discussion and confusion is the last resort aside from conceding.

also relevant:

doublespeak noun
dou·​ble·​speak | ˈdə-bəl-ˌspēk
Definition of doublespeak
: language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth

war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength...and fact is faith.

why hello mr quentin beck, fancy meeting you here.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

It just sounded funny to me, so sue me. Oh wait, you've alread judged me, so I guess we're already past that part.

Sentence: "deceptive and dishonest", "as always".

Don't quite understand why I would be deceptive and dishonest about whether or not something makes me laugh though. Or why I should include that which doesn't make me laugh in my quotation to avoid being accused of cherry-picking when only pointing out that which it is that actually made me laugh.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
.
...and fact is faith.

And did you manage to read that one into anyone's commentary here? Or can you? Or could you make a reasonable argument for reading that into anyone's commentary here if so inclined?

Can't say I spotted anything like it specifically regarding those 2 words, but some comments I haven't read in its entirety because they were a bit convoluted. So I could have missed it.

I did spot "nothing ...is... something". But that's obvious, cause I introduced those using that particular form of doublespeak myself. I also spotted 'belief is not faith', but that one was more subtly implied by the manner in which these 2 synonyms were used in this thread. I also spotted "nothing isn''t nothing anymore...in physics" and "by nothing I don't mean nothing" (Lawrence Krauss). Aren't those good examples of doublespeak since some people actually say such things? Another one I spotted in the video I'm thinking about is 'nothing = not nothing = literally nothing = (going to be*) something much much simpler than a creative intelligence'. *: that is, is going to turn out to be, figuratively speaking, once we've completely figured it out, with which it is implied that the one talking like this in the video hasn't quite completely figured it out yet and insinuating others haven't either*, but he's (pretty) sure that it is at least "something much much simpler than a creative intelligence". *: long live the Agnostic Code when desiring to have the listener ignore inconvenient realities/facts/certainties for one's line of argumentation and doublespeak routine; in this case those realities/certainties mentioned by Dr. Craig about the word "nothing" and what it refers to, or should refer to if anyone is using the word honestly and appropiately, without any doublespeak. Not "something", not "not nothing".

I also know of people who present their evolutionary beliefs as factual (not that they are factually beliefs, but that the beliefs themselves are factual, or true; this latter thing also happens when someone claims or implies that 'nothing is something', or treats the word "nothing" as such, as if it's ok to apply it to "something" or when you are actually referring to something, as was done by Stephen Hawking in his book The Grand Design, highlighted below from 16:13 - 23:04). But that doesn't quite sound the same as outright claiming that faith = fact or fact = faith.

I somewhat doubt though that you would be willing to acknowledge that the way Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking talk about the word "nothing" or use the word "nothing", classifies as doublespeak. Even when it's this obvious, especially that it's at least contradictory or a contradictory use of the word "nothing". Although perhaps there's a slight possibility you are willing to acknowledge the latter, that it's at least contradictory or a contradictory use of the word. Perhaps even acknowledge that it's misleading to those who take them seriously regarding this subject because of their reputation, awards and promotion of their intellect and characters by the media and a certain section of the so-called "scientific community". (pff, as if they are not intelligent enough to realize that nothing isn't something and that something isn't nothing, as if it's by accident that they are spouting and promoting this nonsense; I'm sorry, I'm not buying that one. Pretty sure it's deliberate, knowing better, also making sure to do it in a manner that it isn't obvious to those infatuated by the earlier referred to marketing campaign)

It's more likely you'll ignore it though, like all the times before that I linked these videos about the subject "nothing" and the origin of the universe and all the life ultimately in it.

Dr. Carson Beckett to John Sheppard in the Stargate Atlantis show, S03E03:

"It's embarassing enough without you constantly reminding us, thank you." (you gotta here the tone though along with the facial expression, 3:16 below, Sheppard's comment at 3:10 )

a reply to: whereislogic

You didn't spot anything... you cherry picked, and applied your own interpretation (as creationists do).

You completely missed the context and are reverting to your religious sensibilities to try to understand things that are in no way religious.

You just can't think outside of your creationist box.