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.
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?
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?
“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.
originally posted by: whereislogic
The relevant videos about whale evolution can be found in ...
..."Common Decent" (Descent)...
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
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.
...
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..
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.
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.
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?
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)
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?
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
*: 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.
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).
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.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 5StarOracle
I don't need a reward to not act like a dick.
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.
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?
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..