Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

mike the wiz

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    4,604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    329

Everything posted by mike the wiz

  1. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    Here in message one of this thread our forum is being discussed. https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20145 I have given some, "answers" over there, I thought it only fair if they are discussing us over there we can discuss it here. I would HOPE I am not as, "bad" as the member, "Tangle" makes out. Apparently I think myself superior to others. I can only assume I make them feel that way, if you actually look at my posts historically on EFF I have probably said more in terms of self-deprecating comments than assertions of superiority so to my mind it's sort of a self-perpetuating myth, it gets repeated a lot but where are the actual quotes where I say such things? If you think about it properly, THEY DON'T EXIST. It's like when everyone says that Captain Kirk said, "beam me up Scotty" but during the show he never actually stated it even once. It's an indelible factoid. I think it's more that I make SOME people feel insecure because I genuinely DO have knowledge and that can't be right if I am also creationist! I understand being a moderator can of course ATTRACT people's anger because you are always going to be be the bad guy if you're the only police man on patrol. But in terms of what has been said, I think basically it's probably a fair comment to say that the person is basically just personally attacking me. But if I have come across this way to evolutionists here I can only say it wasn't my intention to come across that way. I also thought our forum was fairly balanced, there are certainly many evolutionists that participate such as Goku, Piasan, Wibble, Popoi and really there are only about four active creationists. I admit my "responses" perhaps may have been a bit knee-jerk reaction it seems with this member I am his target-of-hatred, apparently I am the stupidest person on planet earth if I am to paraphrase him. Anyway, my provisional conclusion is a head-scratcher, I am baffled by the things said. If I remember correctly this is also the person that thinks, "What If" is some kind of closet-creationist. Lol.
  2. mike the wiz

    Giant tortoises

    I was reading about the Mary Celeste, and the Dyatlov pass incident. What's remarkable about some mysteries is how many plausible explanations can be put forward and all be thwarted one by one because of things which wouldn't make sense of the facts. One theory for the Mary Celeste's abandonment was that pirates took over, killed the members of the ship, but nothing was stolen, no looting. Another was that bad weather caused them to abandon ship, but an objection was the captain wouldn't make a rash decision like that, to take the lifeboat knowing it could lead to a much better chance of death. Basically with each reasonable theory I read, there was some kind of obvious silver bullet for that theory. One was that they came close to shore and thought they could make for land in the lifeboat but then got blown out to sea in a tide, however how the sails were set didn't fit with that theory. Conclusion; sometimes in life there are mysteries and puzzles that seem like riddles that have no perfect answer. This is simply our inability and our limitations. It's the limit of human knowledge and intellect. Doesn't matter our IQ, creationist or evolutionist, ultimately we are still kind of puny in our limitations. And in a sense I think Wibble does not consider this, especially with these little objections he thinks up, and he likes to almost mock the CMI scientists for not always having answers, but nobody on earth has all the answers and a lot of the objections to evolution go ignored such as Haldane's dilemma, Sanford's genetic rust leading to error-catastrophe, these things are actually silver bullets to evolution for those in the know. There's no getting around the fact that natural selection cannot remove mutations that are nearly neutral and over time cause genetic noise. With each generation we inherit more and more mutations that don't cause enough harm to kill but in the long term add up to cause a genome which has too much degradation to continue. There are lots of little things like that that go ignored on the evolution side, Wibble should consider.
  3. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    Acceptable. A good saying indeed. We accept that you are correct that the evidence for macro evolution doesn't exist and is a fairytale on steroids. In this sense we all accept, "evolution" if we just mean micro change in size, shape and colour. You can have a fossil of a dragonfly that is larger, shaped slightly differently being fatter or thinner and a different colour but not significant "macro" scale change. But you forget that MOSTLY on forums such as these when you say, "evolution" most people will think of macro. But what do you mean am I "curious as to how the cell came together"? A creationist believes all cells came together in a polyphyletic baramin-creation when God created the various animals, along with their anatomies. Their body plans would be made as it says with their seed within themselves so we know the chicken came fully assembled with all of the various kinds of cells. I don't think that is a matter of science, the creation of the miraculous is a miracle. Science is in reality, in a sense a much smaller subject than people think it is. It would be better if you could prefix it with the term, "micro" and say "micro-evolution is a fact". Simply because of the confusion it can cause. Most people talk about "evolution" as macro-evolution, that's certainly what creationists refer to it as.
  4. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    They seek him here, they seek him there, they seek the toad to beat him so! To thrash him up, insult him so, a ho ho don't you know, rodeo! Ho now can you see it here........ as to why they verily haunt him there! Because he bringeth evo low, and giveth it a logic scare!
  5. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    Ban the theory from the theory? I know what a cell is, not to a qualified level but I know that we're dealing not with complexity but rather with specified complexity. The difference between what you are reading right now and this; ygjdsfyeieg8uu3gr4lar4yw347gri4gtr. The latter is complex, the former is specifically complex. A protein is a polymer of homochiral amino acids meaning they are left handed, and are all arranged in the correct order so as to become a folding protein and are protected from hydrolysis complete with peptide bonds. Then we have polymers of nucleotides, (DNA) which is a quarternary code, consisting of codons (words from the code GATC). We also have heterozygous and homozygous alleles in terms of looking at real eukaryotic cells such as in human beings, with varying ratios. There is also transcription which in itself is by analogy a sort of orchestrated, choreographed plan-of-action. Every feature is viable as a whole design. I may have misunderstood parts of your post but I think there's definitely a sort of loaded terminology you use whereby you think evolution is true and factual even when you are describing reasons why it shouldn't be regarded that way. It is sometimes hard to, "get" your motives, partly because you could express more clearly what it is you are trying to describe, if you wander off into a subject it can be hard to know where you veer off and are sort of thought-experimenting or whether you are trying to claim something. If you amalgamate all of the various contexts it can be hard to know where one and the other begin. In other words your posting STYLE if you like, can be a bit too conversational for a forum at times, and it can be hard to see what it is you are trying to really say. As for evolution discounting God, it basically gives the glory for the overtly miraculous, to a process so as to say that a process done it instead of the obvious cause. Genesis says that God created life according to it's kind. That is what I see. I don't see any Darwinian tree. But your language still contains strange features. Loaded terminology in the favour of evolution being some absolutely true thing, almost like you think we should take it for granted that it is science and that it is true. Come on man, you must surely know there can be no handshake between light and darkness. (I don't refer to people, I refer to Godless philosophy like evolution, and God's creation).
  6. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    Because you are explicitly stating things like this; "evolution as i know it is a reality, no question about it". Though perhaps I misunderstood what you said pertaining to the bit about evolution being a fact if there is a first cell, perhaps you could have made that easier to understand. Part of the problem is it can be hard to determine whether you are just trying to barely assert evolution is true like with the, "evolution as I know it is a reality, no question about it." That is a CLAIM, but I have put forward sound reasons which disallow that as being true. How can evolution be a fact if there is no such thing as Koonin's LUCAS? And if there is no cause of them and they never existed. What you need to understand is this; even if it is only POSSIBLE there is no such cause and no such ancestor/s, then it follows that evolution cannot be a, "fact". That's because logically for oxygen to be a fact, or the moon to be a fact, or germs to be a fact, there isn't any assumption within those true facts whereby we have to believe by faith there is some natural cause that will create a fictional version of a cell. Surely you must know that as a bible-believing Christian site, statements that evolution is true cannot be merely accepted. What exactly do you propose we do as creationists? Drop all of our strong arguments for the Lord and just conclude evolution is true because you assert it is and believe it is? Keep your hair on, all I am asking is that you don't make assertions evolution is true and fact. But your wording also seems LOADED. Such as you say "science has no clue how the first cells arrived here". But that type of wording IMPLIES that it is some sort of truth that there was some first cell. If there is no, "clue" as to how the "first cells" indeed, "arrived" then you can't grant that it is anything more than science fiction that such cells ever existed. In terms of the best explanation, the best explanation according to logical rules is that design is true because the tree is missing it's trunk, it's branch-roots so to speak, and also it's roots if the roots are the "first cells". If we find phyla arise, then remain the same throughout the record and the actual evidence doesn't show any Darwinian tree, only an orchard with all the joins missing, and there is no cause of any LUCA, and we find all organisms are viably designed, by far the best explanation is that evolution doesn't in fact exist and design/creation is true. After all the fossil record SHOULD be a history of the evolution of life on earth, what it actually is is a record of abrupt appearance with no ancestors, and then "stasis" as they would TERM it, but we all know "stasis" means, "no evolution".
  7. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    Sorry but you don't get to assert that on a forum like this. This whole forum is about this issue. Your statement is merely a fallacy of credulity/bare assertion. You believe and are convinced evolution is a reality so you conclude it is. The true application of the term, "reality" is towards those things we know to be 100% facts. It is "reality" that all lifeforms are viable as designs, even millions of them are all viable, and all have all of the features of intelligent design. LIFE is reality, macro-evolution is a story. You can repeat it is a reality all your life, we will never accept a mere assertion it is, when the evidence does not show macro evolution is a, "reality". Logically that is the very problem; such terminology is LOADED terminology. To use the words, "started" or, "solve" implies two loaded errors in reason; 1. That it did start. (How could it have if there never was any LUCAS?) 2. That there is a "problem" to "solve". But if the problem is solved by inferring evolution and abiogenesis never existed, like the best direct evidence supports then that is how it is "solved". Same loaded terminology. How can science "know" something about first cells that you haven't even shown ever existed? Codswallop. That is nothing more than naturalist magic. There is no science for such a fairytale notion. The statement is like saying that a bunch of letters all simultaneously sprang from a pen's ink to produce Shakespeare. Not even worth addressing. It only proves the group, "non-believers" despite what Goku said, will accept a scenario just as fantastic as many of the false religions such as wood-idols or holy cows. Just because you are in the "materialist" group doesn't mean your worldview is any more valid than the majority of absurd religions because if materialistic naturalism is also false like them then it is just another false belief, and unbelievers can then be grouped (ironically) with "religion", only the group would simply be another title; "false beliefs". The term "once" implies it happened. Why do you think using such language is impressive. I can say the same about phlogiston spaghetti monsters; "Once the first phlogiston spaghetti monster arrived evolution is a fact". The "first cell" isn't a real thing, it is a hypothesized pseudo-cell by Koonin with minimal parts and it couldn't be viable without help from outside elements. The "first cell" isn't the same as a "living cell", the former is fictional and posited, the latter is a real thing. THERE IS NO MACRO EVOLUTION. Stating it is a fact doesn't mean it is. "What If", I don't mind if you say, "I believe evolution is a fact", but you are again starting to barely assert the case for evolution because you cannot provide any strong logical argument for it's existence. STOP DOING IT. You were told about this in the past and seemed to agree to stop doing it now you are doing it again with the loaded epithets and assertions. This is a debate-board, you can't simply declare victory for evolution. I WILL DELETE ANY MORE EVOLUTIONIST PROPAGANDA SPREAD AT THIS SITE. Provide proper arguments or be silent but do not just DUMP a load of assertional turds on our doorstep.
  8. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    Perhaps a better analogy is this for the common ancestor of all life; we find a nice wood roof (we believe), some walls, or we think they are because we have limited scope. We find bits of wallpaper and many things we THINK might make a house, this all implies there was a house standing on the ground. However, all of that falls apart as a theory if there is no ground for the house to stand on, for all the things we found were floating on water. (Don't try and say, "but it could have been a house and is now disarticulated". That isn't the point of the analogy. In this analogy we assume the parts are not parts of a house.) Why can't you see the obviously correct logic Goku, if there is no ground there can be no house no matter how convinced you are that it is one. 100 evolutionists; "no you're wrong, are misapplying logic." Lol..............yeah right! (I mean in terms of difficulty as a problem it's about 1 out of 10, if 10 is difficult.) "Gee mike you can solved 10 but not 1! Believe us when we say that!" Lol.
  9. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    But I would say there is a difference between life being here and an ancestor being here. Yes, life is here, but an ancestor is not part of that life, an ancestor is a posited thing of evolution theory. You can't escape the ancestor of all life comes from evolution-theory. If that posited thing from evolution theory has no cause in nature then evolution must assume it got there without any natural causation. So then to get evolution you need that ancestor. How do you get it? If my theory of evolution starts with the ancestor being a phlogiston apple, since there is the same amount of evidence for that apple as a primordial ancestor, (none), then why even believe any evolution theory? You can literally make that ancestor whatever you want, such as a spaghetti monster, because it has the same evidence as a common ancestor of all life. (none). So we find no cause for a thing we have never found to be a fact. THAT is what evolution is based on, something never found, that there is no evidence can be caused. Logically that's at the very least, that's going to make a chronically WEAK theory. I think it does follow and believe I have the knowledge of logic to know I am right. The fact is evolution first has to act on something. What can that thing be? A giraffe, a bird, a pig? No. It has to be an ancestor of all that exists. The truth of the matter is reasonably speaking if there is no cause for that ancestor there is no reason to believe it ever existed. If it never existed it follows evolution doesn't exist in terms of macro-evolution. (read and fully understand the woman murder suspect, analogy) It doesn't matter, they're wrong. The non-religious position is fantastical and it's propaganda that it's built on evidence. There is plenty of evidence for God's existence for those that truly understand how to qualify evidence. (not those at EvC, they associate themselves with evidence and science, that's all). When you receive the Holy Spirit the spirit, "guides you into all truth", and you naturally end up seeing evolution for what it really is. The fact it's so easy to refute once the Lord teaches real knowledge means that these perceptions you have are merely your subjective guesswork as an atheist not in the know. We reject evolution because it is false. The creation is so obviously miraculous, you can see how it can be proven easily with my ID argument. Read my signature. All you are doing is repeating Tangles, "religious people" blanket-covering, propaganda-codswallop. But this is just to make mental gymnastics belong to "religious" people, I have directly observed the same behaviour in evolutionists, when confronted with staggeringly obvious deductive reason that either blows evolution away or richly endorses creation and ID. You just blow it off. I don't buy it. Core ideas are not religiously motivated? I think it's pretty obvious that the world took evolution and ran with it, knowing it would be a nice way to basically justify a non-theist worldview using science. Historic science wasn't even regarded as science as such back then. But when uniformity and evolution came on the scene all of a sudden historical science was accepted as science. Gee, what an honest coincidence. (Advice: If you really want to support "Tangle" you may want to click on my name and read our exchanges in the past, if you want to get a better impression of him. Good luck finding a post where he doesn't ad-hom me in some way.)
  10. mike the wiz

    Giant tortoises

    You say that like two went there. Lol. Listen I wouldn't believe ANY spiders could get in my shed after I sealed it, not least of which the 4 million tiny flies. If anything is a fact we can all agree on it's that life finds a way. Of course God did it. The only way to have a flood is for God to orchestrate the details. It wouldn't make sense if He gave a command to go forth and multiply if there was no way for life to spread out around the earth. Like you said in the opening message, under evolution or creation somehow the tortoises got there. I fail to see why unproven imaginary millions of years should get you off the hook and not get me off the hook. That is the great thing about using eons to make anything seem possible. But the fact is we don't know when the tortoise got there but we know that logically; 1. It's possible for animals to get there, because they're there. 2. It's possible for animals to travel long distances. 3. It's possible there was enough time for it to happen. Therefore, "fantasy" seems like an epithet to me. I am afraid it just isn't remarkable to me that it happened, but in terms of probability, even if it is low probability, what is that compared to the probability of a tortoise and a turtle randomly existing yet looking to similar? They have no close relations. It's "too neat", and implies purpose. And what about all the correct designs in nature just so happening to be solved without any intelligent design whatsoever? So to my mind if you are comparing this to evolution in terms of logical reasoning the law of the excluded middle does not apply, meaning your reasoning is unacceptable if we put it into it's true context of; "You shouldn't accept unlikely creationist scenario P, therefore accept one million times more unlikely thing X." X being evolutionogenesis from slime. But why would this tortoise-problem remove the design of the tortoise? So the worst case scenario would be YEC flood is somehow flawed, but that wouldn't make evolution likely or true, it would just mean we had got the bible wrong, all of the design of the tortoise would still be there anyway. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf And? Am I am a YEC website-dictionary like CMI, am I supposed to know every little detail of every little thing you try and come up with to try and thwart creation? Also "not very impressive", is a matter of subjective opinion, it seems to me this is actually a mystery for evolution or creation, proving what I have told you in the past; that sometimes complex events can't always be fully understood simply because humans are not all knowing.
  11. mike the wiz

    Giant tortoises

    The dispersal of the pre-flood continent may have taken hundreds of years, it may be that the journey back then was only half what it is now. The continental drift would have been fast to begin with but would have slowed down as it lost energy, we don't know how long it could have been a thousand years for all we know for them to reach their present positions. it could also be that the Lord parted the seas like when He opened the red sea, only tortoises wouldn't have had a staff or Aaron to speak for them. The tortoises could have perhaps had a vote on it. Who care anyway, like BK said no matter how they got there it beats believing they came from jello. Your alternative is that the design of a tortoise and all the right parts, materials and contingencies all came from a natural process, which is like believing a car chassis came from rock. It's one thing believing a tortoise got from a to b, it's another thing believing a tortoise invented itself. Logically we know that getting from a to b isn't an impossible thing, but things inventing themselves for no reason is. Ho, ho! Edit to add; of course strictly speaking I don't stick to this figure of 4,400 years or whatever, there's no way you can get a figure like that. CMI insist on it but even with carefully studying it with so many dots to join you have to allow wiggle room. Though of course you can't stretch the figure indefinitely but certainly we can say the flood was perhaps within the last 10,000 years.
  12. mike the wiz

    Giant tortoises

    What's "hyper" about it though? We also find 12 inch dragonfly fossils. It only takes a few generations to breed things to be different, all it would take is a few hundred years of a certain selection pressure to push them towards the larger size. A tortoise becoming a tortoise is hardly hyper-evolution unless your definition of evolution is, "no anatomical design changes".
  13. mike the wiz

    Giant tortoises

    I think the spin on this would be one of "chance", when we look at the term, "lucky" for example. But we know God wanted certain things and it wasn't all about chance. The command in the bible by God post-flood was to spread out over the continents. We can imagine the Babel dispersal was partially influenced because they were not spreading out but animals are smarter than us a lot of the time and they always do what God says. Perhaps people took tortoises with them. How did it happen with evolution, did they lose their wings? Or perhaps they morphed on the way there, and were initially birds. Bible; "Bring out with you every living thing, .....that they may abound on the earth" In another place it says, "God created the earth to be inhabited." It makes sense that God wanted the animals and the people to spread out over the earth and fill it, there would also be land-bridges. We know for example the animals came to Noah, a strange instinct the Lord gave to them, perhaps in a similar way post-flood God gave them the instinct to spread over the earth. He may have even kept the land-bridges as long as possible for that purpose.
  14. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    You're not wrong in this example, but you do have the subject wrong. This is actually an example where the subject of logic is venerated because it can actually say why this error occurred. Here it wouldn't be logic you would be applying because logic would say the error was a modo-hoc error, a type of compositional fallacy. With logical notation, it does not actually require us to say that, "counter-intuitive things are impossible", what it actually says is that the law of non-contradiction applies. But in the example you give you wouldn't be applying logical reasoning you would be applying common sense. Common sense or, "human reasoning" is not the same as logical reasoning. Human reasoning is basically fallacious reasoning. It's common sense that says counter-intuitive things cannot exist, not logic. Like if we say, "all individual plane parts are non-flying, surely then a plane as a whole is non-flying." That's isn't, "logic", it's a fallacy (fallacy of composition). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With my application of logic to the abiogenesis scenario, my syllogism is sound and the premises are true making it a sound argument thus; Science is defined as only containing methodologically natural causes. It is possible there is no methodologically natural cause for evolution's common ancestor of life. If there is no actual science cause for evolution's ancestor of life then that ancestor is not science. (Because if it is not possible to have such an ancestor caused in nature then one could not arise without invoking a miracle, and science cannot accept the supernatural because of the MN rule) So then a second sound conditional follows as a corollary; If a common ancestor is not science, then it follows evolution cannot be. (because the common ancestor comes from evolution theory, and if SOME of evolution is not science then it is all not science how it is presented as macro because NOTHING is allowed that breaks MN) (only micro-evolution is real science, because it doesn't require macro which requires an ancestor/s.) So PRESENTLY, because there reasonably isn't a cause of Koonin's ancestral-cell, and one has never been found, and all experiments for abiogenesis are evidence supportive of biogenesis then at least presently evolution-theory is only "part" science because one of it's most fundamental inferences is not supported by any science. (a common ancestor) So then it is literally by faith you must infer the ancestor had a cause, which means you have to believe in something which could be 100% science fiction. So then how can evolution be science under such unavoidable logic? To my mind I was happy to call evolution science until I discovered this syllogism. It would now seem more appropriate to describe it as "natural philosophy" to my mind rather than real science because real science doesn't rely upon unsupported major themes. Especially when we consider a lot of the things they say evolved are also believed to have evolved based on faith coupled with conjecturally "plausible" storytelling. CONCLUSION: Traditionally science and logic are inseparable, all of the famous discoveries by experimentation relied upon deductive reasoning. It's when logic is neglected on behalf of theories such as evolution that you end up with something propped up by reputation rather than quality. Evolution has the "appearance of scientific legitimacy" but logically it has many demonstrable flaws as a theory, and in order to have humility perhaps technically that doesn't fully falsify it, I don't know for sure but the holes in it are big enough to my mind to reasonably consider it SUNK.
  15. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    I think it's fairly obvious that atheists like you, the ordinary every day sort, that doesn't insult you and just rationally discusses thngs aren't the problem I am talking about in this thread. I am talking about people that from my perspective behave so bad and are so ugly on the inside that you almost can sense a dark force at work among them. Join that site and pretend to be a creationist, in three months you will contact me and say, "mike, what the HECK was that?.what is going on with THAT?!? NUTZZZZ!!!!" But you have to be subject to it for a long time to know it's subtle and insidious nature. I remember once a long time ago when I was active on that forum, I invented a very gentle Christian friend of mine to partake, and he almost went into a kind of shock. I remember vividly he said something like this; "Mike, I actually didn't know people like that existed. I couldn't stand it. I tried to join but it was such a dark place I honestly couldn't even stay there for more than five minutes, I just can't be around something like that." And he was SHOCKED, totally like a deer in the headlights. To my mind it is the enemy at work. "you wrestle not with flesh and blood but with forces in powerful places." (paraphrase). But in terms of convincing me the bible is true? I can tell you people like the new atheists have helped me as being one of the most powerful examples of the sinful nature, in convincing me the sinful nature is true. (sort of ironic but those years of putting up with them really helped to cement my faith as true) Not just in people online, but observing the spirit of alchohism, aggression, paranoia, self-centredness, and the whole gammet of human "morality". Lol! It's one thing to read the bible, it's another to experience what it says would happen to you for believing in Christ. Christ said, "blessed are you when they insult you and say all manner of false things about you for my sake". - paraphrase. The bible really comes alive when you see it in action, when you are told you are the opposite of what you are by people because you represent Jesus Christ FOR REAL. by really believing God exists and really did create the universe and life. That hatred is only preserved for those who truly believe. Why is that if Christianity is false? (think about it)
  16. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    Perhaps I should have explained better. Let's try an analogy then; but first let me state; remember I am talking specifically in this thread about anti-theists or, "new atheists" rather than atheists at this site. An anti-theist is a small sub-group of people that spew rhetorical vitriol at mostly Christian people because they basically have a hatred for Christianity. Just reading that first message I linked to will give you a "sense" of what they are like but it won't give you the full experience of what they are like. To get the full experience of what they are like and how they treat you as a creationist, like me you have to attend their "lions den" for a year or two. (For me it was from 2003 to about 2010). So in terms of what I meant by "religion", you have to remember how they argue it. They argue that you are, "either religious or science". So if I am "religious" as a creationist, that would mean under their logic I am, "not" on the side of, "science" and am a science-denier that does not understand scientific things. That is the logic they use. An anti-theist will never call you a "Christian", they will only deliberately use the term, "religious" so that when they make arguments against "religion", they can automatically associate the creationist with the term, "religion" (because they NAME us, "religious") and when they say something scientific because they name themselves as the, "science" group they automatically associate themselves with science and scientific achievement and understanding. This is called an association-fallacy, whereby with the former example, I as a creationist would be "guilty by association with religion" and with the latter example they would be, "innocent by association with all things science". However if say Tangle and I were put to the test on science and general knowledge and critical thinking, it's highly likely I would blow him away intellectually. which points out how useless it is to describe a person in such a BROAD capacity, it is simply a way of making an individual into a group. Here is the analogy; Siili: "Describe yourself as a person, Bob." Bob; "A mammal." Siili: "But that is not specific enough." Bob: "Yes but are you saying I am not a mammal?" Now let's look at what you said; Yes, creationists are religious, like humans are mammals. The problem is, if I describe you as a "mammal" I can then associate you with pigs, that are filthy. That is the point I am making, by new-atheists describing us as, "religious", they get to lump us into a very broad group that fits their agenda in how they want to characterise us. But religiosity is not something that solely defines us. In terms of logical evaluation, "materialism" is not religious but it contains claims just as fantastic. It is a fantastic claim to believe a fine-tuned universe riddled with design can come about naturally without any designer cause given all things ever found to have all of the designer features had a designer. It's a fantastic thing to look at all of the designs in nature as clearly miraculous as they are and believe ultimately they designed themselves without any real cause to. It's a fantastic thing to believe human beings with all of our differences have the same meaning ultimately as an ant. It's a fantastic thing to believe that bad things like rape and murder are in actuality just molecules colliding and to believe there is no ultimate morality when our very existence as humans contradicts that. It's a fantastic thing to believe a minimal Koonin-cell would construct itself step by step without any reason or goal in mind given the entire thing would be "correct" in it's design, and in it's parts, information and everything else. So then, if we are to be described as religious in order to make out that we believe in unscientific things or fantastic things, don't atheists also believe some unscientific things? After all abiogenesis is basically science fiction. But they do so because of how different beliefs are within the term, "religious". You're kind of making the point I made earlier, if there are such radically different, conflicting beliefs in religion where "religious" people are so far apart in what they believe then how relevant can the term, "religious" really be in describing me? It can only describe me on a very broad level. It cannot really describe me acutely, just like the term, "mammal" cannot. That's correct but so can creationists (but they only associate us with, "religion"). Do you know what exaptation is? It's the science of evolution I speak of here. How about a pleisomorphy? Or an apomorphy or synapomorphy? Do you want me to show you my own phenogram? What is the ratio for the homozygous/heterozygous alleles in the human gene pool? State the difference between an acquired characteristic and an inheritable trait. Is echolocation an example of a homplastic or homologous trait? Does a crocodilomorph belong to the cursorial theory of avian flight or the arboreal theory of avian flight? Give me an example of an allopatric speciation event as opposed to a sympatric one. Which presently are regarded as the closest ancestors of whales, mesonychids or artiodactyls? Do creationists accept genetic drift? what are some more features to expect from evolution? Natural selection (differential reproduction) normalised selection, S@xual selection, gene flow, genetic drift and isolated populations. Shall we now talk geology? What about progradation in flume experiments showing lateral, superposed facies can be laid down by hydraulic action and how this might apply to the sorting of sediments in terms of particle sizes? What is your view on paraconformities and inselburgs? (erosional remnants such as buttes). Shall we discuss the features of the coconino sandstone and the paraconformity between that bed and the hermit shale? what about the study done on the tracks in the coconino and the angle of the bedding plane in relation to a comparison with wind blown dunes and marine ones? What about the petrology of the rocks recently studied and how they overturned the notion that the coconino could have been created in a desert environment? Or we can discuss the traits of the flora and fauna and the patterns we see in Grand canyon pertaining to tracks and their characteristics and how they fit with escapage from flooding. Should we go on to chemistry and discuss the Urey/Miller experiment and how a racemic mixture of amino acids in now way would represent a homochiral polymer found in organic chemistry? We can look at how every feature is an overkill example of teleology as opposed to the dysteleology we would expect. In terms of some of the more successful experiments I believe a tetra-peptide was the furthest they got in the attempt to make a polymer of aminos. As far as a polymer of nucleotides, I haven't read up on that one yet but the problem with breaking racemisation and achieving a polymer with aminos is that hydrolysis is a barrier they have to work hard to overcome. But if they do that they are acting as teleological agents, and those agents wouldn't be present in a random, non-intelligent scenario. But that's just the inner workings of your fictional Koonin-cell, in terms of the organelles that exist in the more sophisticated eukaryotic cells, those would come later than the prokaryotic cell or the proto-cell. Then there is all of the machinery such as the chaperone proteins and the wonderful little kineson motors for example or flagella. The ATP synthase rotory motor, with working cogs like in our own motors. There is no evidence of any stepwise dysteological intermediate and useful stages here. Can you see the problem yet with ASSOCIATING me SOLELY with, "religion"? It actually does not mean I am the ignoramus that is set in a position which is mutually exclusive to all science. Believe it or not, I accept all of the facts within population genetics. I accept all science facts within the theory of evolution, and I fully know what evolution is as an argument, I can show test scores of averages of 80% on evolution-tests, many of which I scored higher than evolutionists on. I only disagree with what they INFER from those facts, as non-sequiturs according to logical notation. But I don't associate myself with science, nor do I use the esoteric terminology like above, and you will seldom hear it from me, but does that mean I don't understand evolutionist arguments, or does it just mean I am not insecure like new-atheists and don't have to pretend I am science just to make me look good and others look bad. That is why new-atheists like Tangle represent PROPAGANDA. He himself would likely be BAFFLED by most of those terms and know little to nothing about them but because he associates himself with the science-side.....................................................................(starting to see what I mean by, "association" fallacies?)
  17. mike the wiz

    Lots of Spammers joining

    It's not that significant IMHO but Bob done well. In terms of Jack's answers, yeah he wouldn't do the test because of the "spin" he thought creationists would put on it but basically that's a tacit admission that the outcome of what the test means, is more important than a purist scientific motive. If you're a truly objective science you shouldn't really care if evolution is made to look bad, or even if a C14 test will prove a sasquatch is president Trumps nephew, it just shouldn't matter. the test won't lie. They basically know it will count as MORE evidence in favour of creation so if they have the power to stop evidence for creation coming into existence they will do it. Which begs the question, HOW MUCH MORE evidence supportive of creation is ACTUALLY out there, but because of a commitment to materialism, the work never got done, but instead decades and decades of testing and science has went into evolution. Not exactly a fair playing field when atheists club us with the "where's your science" type request when they full well know that nobody will let us do any science. LOL
  18. mike the wiz

    Lots of Spammers joining

    Lama2020 is banned, he was a spammer posing as another member whose name I can't spell. They're both banned. They didn't have any activity but I spotted some sales spiel in their personal "about me" section. Same guy so I don't know why I am saying, "they". I was able to perform a pre-emptive strike and shut them up before they spoke. (that'll teach 'em to mess with the queen's soldiers). But please let me know if you see anything else suspicious, I know my two right hand men are at the helm, lieutenant Sulu (Piasan) and my gunner commander Chekov (Killurbluff). Also another idiot joined last night and got away with spamming a topic but I deleted it pretty shortly afterwards. They could all be the same turd that has a liking for this site for some reason. Rest assured, with Captain James T. Toad at the helm, the EFF enterprise's shields are still holding. I can hear Fred's pride in me even on this side of the pond with those fireworks most of you mistake for the 4th of July! No Sirs, it is too early for 4th July, it is indeed Fred's celebration party, for he is celebrating employing me as captain of the EFF enterprise! Besides I haven't given my approval for independence day yet, remember I have the power Fred has imbued me with, to revoke independence of the USA! So it could be only one spammer causing the trouble, or two.
  19. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    This is basically a forum for the new-atheist type version of evolutionist where they promote, "science versus religion". (EvC Forum) Basically the "standard" there these days is close to utube roughly speaking. So if you don't accept anything from the mainstream science or if you even question Darwinism you likely get lumped into, "religion" and automatically qualify as someone that doesn't understand science . I'm sure you've met the type before... In terms of the popular myth of, "we the atheists are on the side of rationalism and science and you the religious are on the side of wishful thinking and delusion", it should be again noted that logic can help eliminate such rhetoric rather swiftly. Let us just consider for a moment this terminology using a very basic logical appraisal of some facts; For example I likely reject 99.999% of what the broad category, "religion" would claim making any description of me as, "religious" akin to a description of my character as a person and how it distinguishes me from others as, "a mammal", given that is how BROAD the term, "religious" is in describing someone. It basically tars you with the broadest and crudest brush possible, which is what they desire of course. I wonder if for example they are aware that I don't share much in common with someone that believes cows are holy, or pagan atheists that believe God doesn't exist and crystals can heal. Nor do I share much in common with ANY Muslim, Buddhist, or any Roman, Egypt, Viking or Greek mythologies. In fact so mutually exclusive are most religions that the group, "religion" comprises of such dramatic and diametrically opposed views it's almost a meaningless phrase new atheists simply use as an association-fallacy so that every Christian creationist can be equated with every religiously absurd thing or action ever committed. They want to show how science has explained thunder, they just say, "see, you folk on the side of religion would say it was Thor farting but look at what we provide for you as the ones on the side of science, that's why science is superior." See how easy it is to tar us with that big-brush then give some spiel like that so they can pretend their motives are all, "science" and it was mike that invented Thor? Lol. But logic shows they didn't give any science-explanation it was other people that did, and they might have even been Christian. Just as I as a Christian have never had anything to do with irrational GOTG fallacies of that type. It's almost by analogy, like an American fascist saying, "hey you, German, you are a kraut, but look at us, we live in the land of the free and give freedom to people." So just what do they think they are achieving by associating themselves with science as fan boys? For example if they associate themselves as fan boys of motor racing does that mean they have motor racing skill akin to the skill Ayrton Senna had? On the other hand I likely accept perhaps 90 to 95% of what mainstream "science" would claim, but apparently the fact I reject 99.99% of religion and accept maybe 95% of science makes me a science-denying religious crackpot much better lumped into the "religious" group.
  20. mike the wiz

    We're Being Talked About

    I deleted my posts because I'm still trying to find the best way to explain this. To make a sound syllogism sound, you need two things. 1. True premises. 2. Valid structural form that obeys the two ways of ponen/tollens. So I would never make the mistake of missing the fact a premise is false. My question is, can you also apply logic to evolution because from my experience that's almost something disallowed. For example if the premise there was a common ancestor of all life is wrong and there is no actual cause in nature of such a thing, then can evolution be true in terms of how it is presented by science to the world, as something that is methodologically natural? This is why logic is so important, because of what it can reveal to us. In this instance it can reveal to us that there isn't a cause for a primordial ancestor scientifically speaking in that there is no science to back such a notion and it is 100% believed by faith. There has never been such a cause found, so logically there are three things of importance we can infer; 1. If there isn't such a cause found it's possible such a cause doesn't exist, and even probable given the expected evidence is missing. 2. Evolution cannot get off the ground if there is no cause for the ancestor of all life. 3. Evolution can't really be science in terms of qualifying as methodologically natural if one of it's biggest claims is not scientifically possible or evidenced. (the claim all life has an ancestor, which is as a claim is found within Darwin's theory) Don't forget it is evolution that claims the primordial ancestor. Be it a premise or indirect conclusion you should read the logic behind that; The germane part, showing how important logic is;
  21. mike the wiz

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Exactly, you can basically just link it back in some way to occultism but like you say it's to take mundane facts and to give fantastic reasons, it's essentially to build a house of cards. I wish KB could see that this is the theme with all conspiracy theory, they all rely on the same type of reasoning. I have spotted the most common type, because I watched shows on 9/11 conspiracy, Kennedy conspiracy and moon landing conspiracy. In each the false conditional implication was always used. You will know all about it because it goes like this; "If they had went to the moon, then this thing P would have happened. It didn't, so they didn't go to the moon." It was the same with the 9/11 crash where the plane crashed in the field; "Had it crashed as they said it did, it wouldn't make that crater shape it made." Amusingly one example you will get a chuckle out of was this; "If that plane had crashed like they say, debris wouldn't have been found six miles away." And they would have been right Goku, had the debris travelled by road.
  22. mike the wiz

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    I appreciate what you're saying, it can be true that some things are intended but there is an underlying and sinister and pernicious intent and that can be ultimately the purpose it achieved but perhaps not in all things. For me NASA and it's motives can't all be traced back to this anyway IMHO in that wasn't it Kennedy's idea to go to the moon anyway?
  23. mike the wiz

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    But what you need to see is that whether he did or didn't basically it's the genetic fallacy KB, if you imply that because occultists began or had something to do with NASA that therefore NASA is bad. Or are you arguing something else? It's hard to know because you never state your argument clearly you just seem to ASSERT things ABOUT NASA, or heliocentricity and we are it would seem, then supposed to endow your statements with great meaning when they seem like fallacies of irrelevance. That's not an insult it's just a type of argument. Just for once can you tell us what your argument specifically is and tell us the reasoning by actually writing it out so I can examine it? Because if occultists did start NASA logically my answer is, "so what", until you provide an argument saying why this should be consequential or meaningful. Logically I can see no reason why it should be meaningful as it seems like a fallacy of irrelevance. The genetic fallacy; EXAMPLE of fallacy; Mom; "oh boy I am happy a cowboy and indian movie is on." Daughter; "that's racist to call them indian." Conclusion; Genetic fallacy, in fact the mom only knows the term, "indian" FROM the westerns she watched as a child and knew nothing about the original use of the term. (hence the blue highlighted part) KB, if I am wrong about any of this can you actually address my points and show how I am wrong? Rather than saying something like this as a pretend example; "Mike the UTTER NONSENSE you BABBLE wearing a DUNCES CAP, is UNBELIEVABLE to ME. YOU ARE UTTERLY refuted in your inane BABBLINGS. Tis st8 clear to see, LMBO." You see, that isn't a real response, friend. If you want to convince me conspiracy theorist reasoning is something I should consider you really have to provide a proper rebuttal my lad. (mischief)So far all it seems you are doing is parroting a lot of internet horse manure written by monkeys(/mischief). (I'm actually addressing your posts not to oppose you I am just hoping you will eventually see there is nothing to conspiracy theorists arguments. You don't have to take it personally because it isn't.) After all how did I know how the genetic fallacy would directly apply? Do you think for example any of the c-theorists that tell you these things would know about such a fallacy? Not likely is it, they usually know about as much as the contents of the back of a chewing gum wrapper at best.
  24. mike the wiz

    Is Earth The Center Of The Universe?

    But KB, why can't you see that this post here of yours I have quoted contains nothing BUT bare assertions. You're using words to basically state things without proving anything. The actual CONTENT of the post is zero in terms of a reasoned defence of your position. You are just stating it is a "fact" that a bunch of bare-assertions by some idiots online that put a picture together is true but I actually shown why the reasoning is poor. One of your pictures stupidly states this; "Helios was a mythical Greek god of the sun, that's what the mythical heliocentric theory is based on." That simply is a bare assertion fallacy. Because worship of the sun as Helios shares in some crude manner a similarity with heliocentrism because the sun is the centre of the solar system in that everything revolves around it is to make the mistake that two things are the same or come from one another because they share SOME characters. "SOME ergo ALL" is fallacious. EXAMPLE; "Burgers sometimes have mustard and are eaten on buns. hot dogs have mustard and are eaten on buns Therefore as a whole, hot dogs are burgers." So it seems to me that their assertion that heliocentrism is based on a belief in Greek myth because of the sun and a naming of the planets is a truly poor argument because it ignores all of the differences and cherry picks those crude similarities and INFLATES them. (a rhetorical device called, playing- it- up. Google it if you don't believe me.) I also offered reasons why, because basically the naming of the planets by the Greeks leads to a natural inheritance in modern times of those Greek names. It makes practical sense to keep the names they gave the planets simply because they were the traditional names passed down to us from the Greek. As for a sharing of the focus of the sun being centric in some shared, vague capacity I also share the fact I eat food with the fattest man on earth, does that mean therefore that his obesity is based on me because I am older than him? Sorry KB but you need to seriously consider letting CMI educate you on some of this stuff because you have placed your faith in the ramblings of FOOLS. This stuff is about as difficult to refute as picking my nose. And on that note, I think this thread has had it's day.
  25. mike the wiz

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    I like that version better than the real one, just because the words sound almost poetical, the usual songs like this are the usual cheap romance crap, ten a dollar. But the different words make it interesting. The words change making it less repetitive.
×

Important Information

Our Terms