Jump to content


Photo

When Evolutionists Attack


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 November 2017 - 04:27 AM

We all know utube videos bring insults, and I'm not creating this topic to whine at the ones I've received I am creating it because I basically wonder if evolutionists/atheists themselves have noticed this now, basically it seems on any video either for evolution or against it, I would say perhaps 95% of the evolutionist comments are some form of this argument;

 

"You don't know the subject."

"People who are over-confident like you tend to be uninformed and not competent in the subject."

"your thinking relies on ignorance of the topic, clearly"

"Everything you said shows you don't understand evolution, lies and dishonesty energise you"

 

Now rather amusingly one atheist, (yes I said atheist) actually commented on one video that it seemed absurd to him that all the other atheists were not providing any argument, but just using some type of personal attack so as to propagate the propaganda that anyone who questions evolution is in some way either retarded, uneducated, uninformed or incompetent.

 

Of course we all know how the fallacy works, it diverts attention away from any topic being discussed, onto the person instead.

 

But that isn't what amazes me, what amazes me is that apart from the material put forward for evolution, the only counter-arguments it's followers generally seem to have is to argue the person. (go to evcforum and type in "mike the wiz" and see what kind of tally you get for some type of personal attack aimed at me. It is definitely the main tactic for evolutionists it seems.)

 

My question is; why do evolutionists/atheists in particular, seem so oblivious to their behaviour? Even when confronted it's highly likely the person will attack personally.

 

And this isn't just limited to the web-bandit anti-theists, even evolutionary biologists want to it seems, imply we are, "liars";

http://scienceandcre...blogspot.co.uk/

Read the entry "Book purchase - Adam's quest"

 

 

CONCLUSION: The accusation of, "lying" has become a very common trend, when I look into the claims of lies from creationists I usually come across something very different, that the creationist in question simply omitted to say something the evolutionist thought was terribly important to the facts but the creationist would see as entirely weak or irrelevant.

 

For example one blogger attacked the geologist Steve Austin, and called "creationists liars" (an absurd generalisation fallacy, as one human behaviour won't be designated to everyone non-evolutionist. Yawn) because Austin neglected to mention that strata formed at Mt St Helens was only a very small portion but the rest of the canyon didn't contain stratification. But from our point of view as creationists, our argument would be that there is now proof such rapid strata can form quickly. 

 

So to basically assassinate-the-character of creationists is the number one intellectual offering of evolutionists. What am I forced to infer? I'm forced to infer that they depend so heavily on propaganda because their arguments for evolution, just aren't that strong. That they live off of the reputation of science, but themselves don't have a particularly scientific attitude that would relieve them of observer bias, and reveal the evidence against their beloved theory.

 

(Disclaimer; The few evolutionists here such as Goku and Piasan, aren't being attacked, I am talking about the majority of people online.)

 

It just seems like there are two large weapons used.

 

1. Science is on our side.

Which is compounded by;

2. You don't understand science.

 

Of course a lot of the time it's clear the evolutionists claiming this themselves don't know science or are removing the focus from the fact that they may be ignorant, but it seems these two weapons-of-propaganda are what atheists are depending on, in order to win. They basically know the easiest way to influence others is to basically make out that anyone who goes against evolution is going against science and doen't understand it. In reality it's a simplistic implication anyway, even the evolution theory itself contains many facts of science creationists would largely accept. We accept for example, all of the experimental data based on population genetics, we accept there are such things as genetic drift, we accept speciation. It is misleading to say that we represent a position against science if we accept a large portion of the things the true science shows, such as speciation, (allopatric/sympatric), and natural selection, negative selection/normalised, S@xual selection, (differential reproduction). There is a whole host of scientific facts from micro evolution which we accept, we just don't accept that they support macro.

 

That's the easiest way to win the EvC debate (number 1 and 2), at least in terms of neurotic agreement, if you look at those two things again they are almost like a karate move by design. 1. we are science. 2. You aren't and therefore don't understand it. I can almost see Dawkins in his karate suit, nodding his head in approval. 1. sweep the leg, 2, strike them on the back of the neck.

 

Lol

 

Most people I come across treat me like I don't understand science, or haven't heard about the science behind evolution. I of course just smile gently within, immediately gauging the fact that I know a lot more than they ever would know about it, and probably a fair deal more things than they'll ever be able to figure out because it can't be taught, but I am a victim of propaganda that person has heard from the majority evos. (In other words, this propaganda does work because I have noticed it primes people I know with a stereotypical version of a non-evolutionist. That stereotype doesn't exist but the atheist propaganda has worked it seems.)


  • Mike Summers likes this

#2 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 09 November 2017 - 07:21 PM

Mike,
No one can observe evo in action and so evos create just so stories mentally derived.

The definition of a miracle is anything that comes into existence without natural causes. Other than natural causes, the only way we know that things can originate is mental causation. Moreover, we can point to numerous things that have mental origins and are therefore miracles-- including the theory of evolutttion (which has a mental origin).

Despite a differnnnce of opinion between us, I wouldn't consider Goku a liar or ignorant. I do believe he wants to believe the theory of evo is possiblle! Unfortunately, he seems to want to refuse to acknowledge that the so called theory of evo (actually an unproved hypothesis) had a mental origin. And yet we all know It was created by an intelligent being!

When I point out things that were created and that that makes creativity a viable method of bringing thing into existence. And so, why couldn't creativity have been used to bring the plants an animals into existnace? Goku accused me of the dreaded practice of equivocation! Thus sayeth the all knowing Goku. So, though he claims there are no all knowing beings he seems to deems himself all-knowing! LOL

Moreover, Goku et al seem to support the myth that observation of the non-physical is above the realm of science!

Science is our reasoning ability and not an entity. It can not have biases (it's people that do that). So, when evo's say something is beyond the realm of science, they are sadly misinformed! As the owner of a mind, I am not aware that anything is beyond my ability to think (practice science)!

So. when evos say something is beyond science (our reasoning process), they are lying or are deceived! They want us to buy into their deceoption and thus self limit our thinking! I am not buying it!

I give then the benefit of the doubt! Still, it probably is not a good idea for them to believe their own PR! LOL



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 November 2017 - 04:23 AM

Beating up on Goku again Mike! He's a baba too you know, don't forget! ;) I will say this for Goku, he at least studies, and can read and understand english which is more than can be said for a lot of anti-theists I come across. He also doesn't attack me with GARBAGE like this;

 

 

"You don't know the subject."

"People who are over-confident like you tend to be uninformed and not competent in the subject."

"your thinking relies on ignorance of the topic, clearly"

"Everything you said shows you don't understand evolution, lies and dishonesty energise you"

 

I appreciate what you're saying Mike as you see it from your angle, to some extent yes science I can agree is our reasoning and experimenting, but as you know I see things usually from my own kind of unique angles, I don't think like other people do.

 

From my own perspective it's not about science, and understanding evolution theory. That is what they seek to make it all about. Now I do understand the evolution theory more than a lot of creationists would but my point is that doesn't matter anyway, the propagandist contingent want to make out it's only about understanding evolution. It isn't, evolution is a claim. There are claims in many areas of life, politics, religion, sport, science. To evaluate claims you have to be proficient in critical thinking and logic, but the propagandists are making out that if you make any logical objection to evolution, you automatically don't understand it. (so the turn that objection on us, and attack us personally, as a tactic)

 

So that's a hidden argument, they are implicitly arguing this; "there can be no objection to evolution theory because scientists have found none themselves and they are the qualified ones."

 

But that argument as a claim, is flawed because nobody has proven that the evolutionary scientists are experts in critical thinking and logic, they only have phds in evolution. To evaluate claims you have to be a student of critical evaluation. I'm not saying the scientists don't have some level of critical thinking, but the point is, if there can be no objection to evolution that as a claim, logically that is identical to saying that evolution is sacrosanct and there can be no sound logical points made against it if scientists don't say there are.

 

That's truly absurd, there is nothing in logical notation which says that a claim can only be falsified by evolutionary biologists. What logical notation actually tells us is that an argument must be sound, the premises true and the conclusion follows. If we evaluate evolution using correct deductive reason, critical thinking and logic never says, "that doesn't count because the scientists don't agree."

 

But in logic, if an objection is logical, then it's logical. To pretend all of the evolutionary scientists of evolution theory are holy priests is to basically believe in an ideal world, where scientists are perfect robots. In actual fact if you read biological evolutionary scientists blogs, what you will find is they are indulging all of the same fallacies that the non-scientist evolutionists are indulging. Circular reasoning, personal attacks on creationists, etc...and making the error of trying to find scientific holes in creation, when they have defined creation as, "pseudo-science" meaning they are trying to falsify miracles based on scientific opinions based on their studies.

 

Imagine if I said to a scientist, "my friend said he was miraculously healed of cancer, he was certain to die, can you falsify this scientifically?" The scientist would say; "Are you kidding me? Science doesn't deal with the miraculous it's limited to methodological naturalism, it's beyond it's scope." But then if you tell that scientist some things about your creationist beliefs notice how he would change his attitude and this time instead say; "that can't be true, a flood didn't happen, science can falsify your myths."

 

But I thought science couldn't say anything about pseudo-scientific, miraculous things? That creation is beyond science's scope?

 

Have you noticed that Mike - how they "borrow" creationism for a moment, bring it into "science" for two minutes in order to refute it with "science" then send it back out the door of science?

 

Lol! Stick to your story evolutionists!

 

 

 

So. when evos say something is beyond science (our reasoning process), they are lying or are deceived! They want us to buy into their deceoption and thus self limit our thinking! I am not buying it!

 

Quite correct Sir baba. And you can use your science to judge whether evolution be false or be true. But they are basically saying that evolution can't be objected to because no scientific evos object to it. 

 

That's like us saying, "no creationist scientist accepts that creationism has any flaws therefore you have to get creationists to agree there are flaws."

 

Lol



#4 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 10 November 2017 - 11:06 AM


Science is our reasoning ability and not an entity. It can not have biases (it's people that do that). So, when evo's say something is beyond the realm of science, they are sadly misinformed! As the owner of a mind, I am not aware that anything is beyond my ability to think (practice science)!

So. when evos say something is beyond science (our reasoning process), they are lying or are deceived! They want us to buy into their deceoption and thus self limit our thinking! I am not buying it!

I give then the benefit of the doubt! Still, it probably is not a good idea for them to believe their own PR! LOL

 

The problem with your argument is that you are conflating two things with "science".... e,g,. human reasoning and human thinking.  Science does not equal either...instead, it's a subset of both.  IMO, the super natural (if it exists) is beyond science (the study of the natural world), but that does not mean that the super natural is beyond our reasoning and thought processes....


  • piasan likes this

#5 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 November 2017 - 12:33 PM

Stormanorman said:
 

The problem with your argument is that you are conflating two things with "science".... e,g,. human reasoning and human thinking.  Science does not equal either...instead, it's a subset of both.  IMO, the super natural (if it exists) is beyond science (the study of the natural world), but that does not mean that the super natural is beyond our reasoning and thought processes....

So are you saying science is a stand alone entity that can function on its own? Funny that! All scientists I know of are alive, concious human beings. Scientists are simply human beings that observe test and re-test hypotheis which when proven become theories. You've never tested the theory of gravity?

I undestand your eagerness to self limit your thinking process. Fear can do that! However, I am not afraid of the supernatural as you appear to be. I THINK ABOUT WHATEVER i WANT! I will not deceive myself because you or some self appointed authoriity figures says so!

 



#6 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 November 2017 - 03:46 PM

Mike the wiz said:

November 2017 - 04:23 AM
Beating up on Goku again Mike! He's a baba too you know, don't forget! I will say this for Goku, he at least studies, and can read and understand english which is more than can be said for a lot of anti-theists I come across. He also doesn't attack me with GARBAGE like this;

If I were as grandiose, selfrighteous and deceived as Goku is I would want someoone to risk my rejection to wake me up! The Bible calls says: "Faithfull are the wounds of a friend!" I love him to much to give up on him! LOL
 

"You don't know the subject."
"People who are over-confident like you tend to be uninformed and not competent in the subject."
"your thinking relies on ignorance of the topic, clearly"
"Everything you said shows you don't understand evolution, lies and dishonesty energise you"
 
I appreciate what you're saying Mike as you see it from your angle, to some extent yes science I can agree is our reasoning and experimenting, but as you know I see things usually from my own kind of unique angles, I don't think like other people do.

Words have the meaning we by consnsus give them! So what's the meaning you associate to the oword (code) science?

From my own perspective it's not about science, and understanding evolution theory. That is what they seek to make it all about. Now I do understand the evolution theory more than a lot of creationists would but my point is that doesn't matter anyway, the propagandist contingent want to make out it's only about understanding evolution. It isn't, evolution is a claim. There are claims in many areas of life, politics, religion, sport, science. To evaluate claims you have to be proficient in critical thinking and logic, but the propagandists are making out that if you make any logical objection to evolution, you automatically don't understand it. (so the turn that objection on us, and attack us personally, as a tactic)

Of course!
I would say they abuse their creative abilities.

So that's a hidden argument, they are implicitly arguing this; "there can be no objection to evolution theory because scientists have found none themselves and they are the qualified ones."
 
But that argument as a claim, is flawed because nobody has proven that the evolutionary scientists are experts in critical thinking and logic, they only have phds in evolution. To evaluate claims you have to be a student of critical evaluation. I'm not saying the scientists don't have some level of critical thinking, but the point is, if there can be no objection to evolution that as a claim, logically that is identical to saying that evolution is sacrosanct and there can be no sound logical points made against it if scientists don't say there are.

That's exactly what I think also. If evicence is an effect then how do we get to a conclusion but take information formulate an hypothesis and then test it to see if it proves true. It seems to me evos misuse the word evidennce and confuse it with causation. They would do well to ask the question, "What caused the effect (evidence) I see before me? Instead they have prejucually decided that evo is the only possible cause.

That's truly absurd, there is nothing in logical notation which says that a claim can only be falsified by evolutionary biologists. What logical notation actually tells us is that an argument must be sound, the premises true and the conclusion follows. If we evaluate evolution using correct deductive reason, critical thinking and logic never says, "that doesn't count because the scientists don't agree."
 
But in logic, if an objection is logical, then it's logical. To pretend all of the evolutionary scientists of evolution theory are holy priests is to basically believe in an ideal world, where scientists are perfect robots. In actual fact if you read biological evolutionary scientists blogs, what you will find is they are indulging all of the same fallacies that the non-scientist evolutionists are indulging. Circular reasoning, personal attacks on creationists, etc...and making the error of trying to find scientific holes in creation, when they have defined creation as, "pseudo-science" meaning they are trying to falsify miracles based on scientific opinions based on their studies.
 
Imagine if I said to a scientist, "my friend said he was miraculously healed of cancer, he was certain to die, can you falsify this scientifically?" The scientist would say; "Are you kidding me? Science doesn't deal with the miraculous it's limited to methodological naturalism, it's beyond it's scope." But then if you tell that scientist some things about your creationist beliefs notice how he would change his attitude and this time instead say; "that can't be true, a flood didn't happen, science can falsify your myths."

That's why I constantly refute the idea that science is an entity, sacrosanct and the exclusive domain of a bunch of self proclaimed authorites.

But I thought science couldn't say anything about pseudo-scientific, miraculous things? That creation is beyond science's scope?

Exactly!

Have you noticed that Mike - how they "borrow" creationism for a moment, bring it into "science" for two minutes in order to refute it with "science" then send it back out the door of science?
 
Lol! Stick to your story evolutionists!

Amen !
 

So. when evos say something is beyond science (our reasoning process), they are lying or are deceived! They want us to buy into their deceoption and thus self limit our thinking! I am not buying it!
 
Quite correct Sir baba. And you can use your science to judge whether evolution be false or be true. But they are basically saying that evolution can't be objected to because no scientific evos object to it.

Evo is not intelligence friendly! 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users