Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
mike the wiz

We're Being Talked About

Recommended Posts

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! :rolleyes:

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.

:think:

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

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! :rolleyes:

It probably comes across that way because you like to focus on logic.  It does give you good standing to argue across a wide variety of disciplines.  But you need to understand a couple points that I'm not sure you do.....  

For one thing, if the premise is false, one can construct a 100% air tight logical argument and arrive at a false conclusion.  That's why I always look at the premise first and it's one of the reasons I decided not declare a philosophy major.

The other is that in science, conclusions are aways tentative.   The expression:   "Proof is for mathematics and alcohol" comes to mind."

 

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

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.

Ya think ? ? ?  :consoling:

 

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

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. 

Well, I know there are creationists that aren't happy with the moderation either.  But we've been without a Constable On Patrol (COP) for some time now and it's to be expected some people will be upset when they're called to account and may think it "unfair."   Sometimes you're just going to make people upset when you do your job.

I used to explain it to my teen-age students who are in Hormones 101 this way:   "There are times when your parents will not let you do something or punish you for something you've done and it will make you so mad you could just spit.  But you KNOW deep inside that if they didn't make the decision they did, they wouldn't be doing their JOB as YOUR PARENTS.

Hopefully, I made life a little better for a few parents and gave a few students a little insight.   I used to call those little distractions "life lessons."

 

6 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

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.

Yeah.... but the forum used to have a number of active creationists who were truly knowledgeable in relevant scientists.  Gilbo, Adam, BoneDigger, Calypsis.   There are only a couple left and they aren't posting much.

Moderation has been much the same .... I've seen both creationists and evolutionists banned and I know for a fact you've disciplined both.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deleted my posts because I'm still trying to find the best way to explain this. 

On 9/15/2020 at 6:33 AM, piasan said:

It probably comes across that way because you like to focus on logic.  It does give you good standing to argue across a wide variety of disciplines.  But you need to understand a couple points that I'm not sure you do.....  

For one thing, if the premise is false, one can construct a 100% air tight logical argument and arrive at a false conclusion

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;

Quote

Imagine if I want to prove that your wife is the murderer, as a cause. (so I have to prove she could have caused the murder)

Let us pretend the victim was strangled. Let us pretend your wife's finger prints were at the scene of the crime, and she had left her lipstick in the victim's house also. Let us pretend that someone saw someone that looked like your wife leaving the victim's village perhaps twenty minutes after the murder.

This is called an inductive tally of confirmation evidence that POINTS to her being guilty. Let's pretend there is more evidence pointing to her guilt as part of that tally to the point where the tally itself is an impressive and compelling induction. 

Does this prove she could have physically caused the death of the victim or evidence it?

Because it is indirect, circumstantial evidence it doesn't actually prove she could have caused the murder.

What would? Well, imagine if it was shown scientifically that her hands were too small and didn't match the thumb prints on the victim's neck. Imagine if it was shown she wouldn't have the physical strength to kill a large man by strangulation. NOW we are dealing with CAUSE, and dealing with direct evidence.

So then what now follows according to logical rules? It now follows your conclusion she was the murderer based on an induction of indirect evidence cannot follow therefore that evidence you thought meant she was a murderer, must mean something else.

In this case it means that she went to have a cup of coffee with the victim like she did every week on a Wednesday at that time.

In the same way, Goku said earlier on that scientists infer evolution and it's ancestor based on evidence, but if such an ancestor does not have any cause and cannot exist in nature, then like with this analogy;

1. Evolution can't prove the cause of the common ancestor indirectly like with this analogy as it doesn't deal with cause. (You can't have your cake as an ornament and also eat it, by saying that evolution proves the ancestor while at the same time saying it isn't evolution's job to prove it.)

2. The evidence you THINK means evolution, like with the analogy, actually wouldn't mean evolution and the correct conclusion like the analogy would be that evolutionists merely have told themselves the, "evidence for evolution" is a compelling case, but that evidence MUST then mean something other than evolution if there is no natural cause of a common ancestor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2020 at 6:38 PM, mike the wiz said:

If I remember correctly this is also the person that thinks, "What If" is some kind of closet-creationist. Lol. 

oh my, here we go.

talk about cherry picking, i guess this guy forgot to consider my posts here i have openly stated more than 10 times i thought the god concept was ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous, and irrational.

i guess he just focused on the posts where i said i simply couldn't throw the concept out of the window.

it always amazes me how such people can embrace the absurdities of quantum physics such as the effects preceding the cause but ignore other absurdities because they simply don't want to believe them.

closet creationist, yup i've heard it before.

at least i'm not a rigid, close minded stick in the mud.

i gotta check out that thread to see what's up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, what if said:

oh my, here we go.

talk about cherry picking, i guess this guy forgot to consider my posts here i have openly stated more than 10 times i thought the god concept was ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous, and irrational.

i guess he just focused on the posts where i said i simply couldn't throw the concept out of the window.

it always amazes me how such people can embrace the absurdities of quantum physics such as the effects preceding the cause but ignore other absurdities because they simply don't want to believe them.

closet creationist, yup i've heard it before.

at least i'm not a rigid, close minded stick in the mud.

i gotta check out that thread to see what's up.

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 :rolleyes:. 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. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

So just what do they (atheists) think they are achieving by associating themselves with science as fan boys?

"atheist" is probably the most disgusting word i've ever heard.

there isn't a true scientist alive that will stand up there and say "there is no god".

as a matter of fact i believe the reason someone wants to turn this into "a war" is that science is keenly aware of the non linear side of physics, of things that lack an adequate explanation.

in short, they are worried, worried the world will find out that life was born complex, the alleged "proto cell" is a joke.

for the life of me, and i've given it my best shot, i cannot rule out god, yes it's about as ridiculous as it can get but i cannot deny the evidence either.

what evidence you say? like i said, there are things which simply cannot be explained and this is one of them.

ridiculous you say? since when did that prevent you from believing the effects precede the cause?

but, but, but, we have the math to prove it !

i have the math to prove mandelbox too, except it cannot exist.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, what if said:

"atheist" is probably the most disgusting word i've ever heard.

there isn't a true scientist alive that will stand up there and say "there is no god".

At least not speaking as a scientist.  

That's why I reject Dawkins when he goes on about this stuff.   It's just as much a misuse of science to use it as a disproof of God as it is to use science as a proof of God.

Science is simply the wrong tool for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, what if said:

"atheist" is probably the most disgusting word i've ever heard.

An atheist simply doesn't believe in god(s). The is no requirement for them to insist that there is no god(s).

What is so disgusting about not believing in god(s)?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

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 :rolleyes:. 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. :rolleyes:

Are you arguing Christian Creationists are not "religious", that christian creationism is not a religion? If not, then please, try to present alternative definitions, ones you think would describe it better. Some members here scoff at the value of semantics, but as a 'logician' I trust you have the appropriate respect for the importance of proper and specific language.

15 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

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.

By your definition no one accepts more than 0,00001% of religion, except maybe the few new-age pantheists. Every religion sticks to their own defined dogma, rejecting every other existing or dead religion. You are making a distinction without a difference with that argument.

15 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

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?

No, but the "fanboys" would know of Artyon Senna's achievements on the race track, possibly have even good idea what made him such a good driver. Just as a science "fan boy", or 'hobbyist', might have knowledge on the achievements of fellows like Hawking, Feynman, Marie Curie and Carolus Linnaeus, and might even grasp on what makes their achievements important, relevant, reliable, or suspect.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 9:31 AM, siili said:

Are you arguing Christian Creationists are not "religious", that christian creationism is not a religion? If not, then please, try to present alternative definitions, ones you think would describe it better. Some members here scoff at the value of semantics, but as a 'logician' I trust you have the appropriate respect for the importance of proper and specific language.

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;

Quote

Siili: Are you arguing Christian Creationists are not "religious"

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. 

On 9/17/2020 at 9:31 AM, siili said:

By your definition no one accepts more than 0,00001% of religion, except maybe the few new-age pantheists. Every religion sticks to their own defined dogma, rejecting every other existing or dead religion. You are making a distinction without a difference with that argument.

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.

On 9/17/2020 at 9:31 AM, siili said:

No, but the "fanboys" would know of Artyon Senna's achievements on the race track, possibly have even good idea what made him such a good driver. Just as a science "fan boy", or 'hobbyist', might have knowledge on the achievements of fellows like Hawking, Feynman, Marie Curie and Carolus Linnaeus, and might even grasp on what makes their achievements important, relevant, reliable, or suspect

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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jambobskiwobski said:

An atheist simply doesn't believe in god(s). The is no requirement for them to insist that there is no god(s).

What is so disgusting about not believing in god(s)?

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

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

good question.

i'm not so sure you can.

for example, you have 2 gases O2, H2 (oxygen and hydrogen) that when you combine them will result in an explosion but yet their product is water which is incapable of supporting an explosion.

is it logical to assume the result from the starting material?

is it logical for catalysts to play a larger role in organic chemistry than in inorganic chemistry although they both follow the same rules and laws?

Quote

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."

i constantly run into this type of thing and it's a strawman type of reasoning.

for example i'll present an argument against natural selection, this will be twisted around to i'm a creationist, evolution denier, anti science, ignorant, uneducated, the list goes on ad nausem, the material i present will likely not even be addressed and if by chance it is i misunderstood it, the author didn't mean what he said, the author retracted, i find it amazing the mental contortions these people will resort to. this is EXACTLY the type of garbage mclintock and others like her had to endure. the really unfortunate part is, it's effective. mclintock quite publishing her work because of it and it's highly likely why waddingtons work was ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jambobskiwobski said:

An atheist simply doesn't believe in god(s). The is no requirement for them to insist that there is no god(s).

What is so disgusting about not believing in god(s)?

like i said before, this goes beyond something i can adequately explain.

it displays a certain closed minded attitude, biased and bigoted.

i don't care what science has told you, the universe and everything in it DID NOT come from nothing.

yes, yes, yes, they have pages and pages of arcane mathematical proofs that "demonstrates" it did, but like i pointed out above this kind of "proof" can indeed be meaningless.

if you have spent as much time as i have frying your brain over this stuff you will definitely see that time, life, and the universe are connected by a common thread, you cannot pull on one without affecting the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, what if said:

like i said before, this goes beyond something i can adequately explain.

it displays a certain closed minded attitude, biased and bigoted.

i don't care what science has told you, the universe and everything in it DID NOT come from nothing.

yes, yes, yes, they have pages and pages of arcane mathematical proofs that "demonstrates" it did, but like i pointed out above this kind of "proof" can indeed be meaningless.

if you have spent as much time as i have frying your brain over this stuff you will definitely see that time, life, and the universe are connected by a common thread, you cannot pull on one without affecting the others.

Not believing in something isn't the same as saying that thing can't exist. There is nothing bigoted, biased or closed minded about it. We all don't believe something, does that make us all bigoted, biased and closed minded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

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)

But what if wasn't talking about certain types of atheists, he was referring to the word atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jambobskiwobski said:

 We all don't believe something, does that make us all bigoted, biased and closed minded?

to a certain degree yes.

of course this only applies to something you have to NOT to believe ( other than words such as ridiculous or ludicrous).

for example in my opinion, you personally have no reason to not believe in god simply because you find the concept absurd.

and i'll wholeheartedly agree with that, but there are other intangibles that you are either missing or dismissing.

if you are missing them then you are ignorant, if you are dismissing them then you are biased and bigoted.

i cannot explain to you what these intangibles are, you must experience them for yourself.

but i do know this, science is not the end all be all of knowledge.

in my opinion all things are possible until i find a good reason to rule them out, and i've found no reason to rule out god.

you are probably sitting there thinking "but it's so absurd" and i'll agree with you, but there are other things equally absurd that are verified facts. just a little something for you to chew on.

this is probably one of the reasons i've been labeled as a closet creationist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 3:10 PM, what if said:

good question.

i'm not so sure you can.

for example, you have 2 gases O2, H2 (oxygen and hydrogen) that when you combine them will result in an explosion but yet their product is water which is incapable of supporting an explosion.

is it logical to assume the result from the starting material?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

 

Quote

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

i noticed the same thing after i read the post a few times.

it's a well known fact that the result of a chemical reaction seldom exhibits any of the properties of the starting material.

this alone is one of the major stumbling blocks to proteins "gradually evolving".

proteins suited for a given task do not "gradually" arrive here, it's all or nothing. anyone with a good high school understanding of chemistry will recognize this fact.

i also noticed you didn't address the second part of the post concerning catalysis.

Quote

With my application of logic to the abiogenesis scenario, my syllogism is sound and the premises are true making it a sound argument thus;

1. Science is defined as only containing methodologically natural causes.

2. It is possible there is no methodologically natural cause for evolution's common ancestor of life.

3. 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;

4. 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)

i put the numbers in to make it easier to address.

1. abiogenesis is defined by the rules and laws of chemistry, not by "science".

for example, the "science" of aerodynamics has nothing whatsoever to do with abiogenesis.

in order to be correct number 1 should read:

1. abiogenesis is defined by the rules and laws of chemistry.

2. It is possible there is no methodologically natural cause for evolution's common ancestor of life.

incorrect, it is NOT possible for atoms and molecules to react that do not follow rules and laws.

we might discover a new law or rule during this process but it would apply to similar atoms and molecules. we cannot escape this.

this is the MAJOR REASON science has been unable to duplicate abiogenesis.

this is why science has concluded that the cell HAD to be complex from the get go.

3. If there is no actual science cause for evolution's ancestor of life then that ancestor is not science.

i believe you are using incorrect terminology, you keep referring to "science" but the correct term is "the rules and laws of chemistry".

you might not be aware of this but science has already concluded that the "proto cell" that gradually evolved into todays life forms didn't exist, it was ALREADY complex, simply because science cannot throw the rules and laws of chemistry out the window whenever it suited them.

4. If a common ancestor is not science, then it follows evolution cannot be

my analysis would be the cell uses a "reject map" to keep track of what works and what doesn't, then uses this information to catalyze macro evolution.

this analysis is supported by the fact that almost all phyla appeared suddenly during the cambrian.

conclusion:

i feel your analysis is flawed due to the fact you are juxtiposing "science" with the "rules and laws of chemistry".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

With my application of logic to the abiogenesis scenario, my syllogism is sound and the premises are true making it a sound argument thus;

This is where we get into the matter of your premise.

Now, if you go through your post and substitute "abiogenesis" for "evolution,"  I totally agree.

The problem is that evolution can not take place until AFTER life exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, piasan said:

This is where we get into the matter of your premise.

Now, if you go through your post and substitute "abiogenesis" for "evolution,"  I totally agree.

The problem is that evolution can not take place until AFTER life exists.

not as darwin envisioned it.

darwin envisioned a simple process, and evolution is very far from simple.

atoms formed simple molecules which combined to form more complex molecules which combined to form a "proto cell" which was the mother of all life.

the above process, although simple in theory, is fatally flawed.

science has concluded that the first cell, the alleged "proto cell" (AKA LUCA) was more complex than existing bacteria of today.

i believe this is a subtle attempt of science at admitting the cell is indeed irreducibly complex.

i'm not sure what all of this ultimately means but i AM sure the darwin crowd aren't too happy about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

2. Evolution cannot get off the ground if there is no cause for the ancestor of all life.

This is just factually incorrect. It doesn't matter how life got here, cause or no cause, natural or supernatural, for evolution to occur once life is here. We know life is here, that is self evident, and describing how life behaves once life is here is not dependent on the explanation of how life got here.

Quote

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)

There are evolutionary scientists that do not believe all life has a common ancestor once you start talking about domains of life.

Besides, if it was found out, for example, that each domain had an independent abiogenesis origin (natural or supernatural), it wouldn't destroy evolution. It would have little to no impact on almost every classic evolution-creation argument/debate.

It does not follow that evolution isn't science if all life doesn't have a common ancestor.

Quote

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.....

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. 

Literally, the second sentence of Tangle's OP over on EvC says, "Not all religious believers are nutters". I assume this means that you can be a religious person while still accepting science - i.e. not a nutter. I assume he would say that the theistic evolution position would not make one a "nutter", although a given TE may be a nutter for a different reason.

I did not get the impression reading the thread that they were trying to say Christians believe lightning is Thor farts or something to that effect.

I know, as a Christian, you think your religion is special and you don't like being lumped in the broader category of religion, but the fact is you are a member of the religious group. That doesn't mean you believe every crazy idea every religion has ever come up with, but there are similarities by virtue of you being religious. Let me put it this way, several times over the years you have said that if you are not a Christian you are an atheist. I would argue that is far more a logical sin than pointing out that Christians are religious people (which is at least a true fact).

Quote

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." .... But logic shows they didn't give any science-explanation it was other people that did, and they might have even been Christian.

That lightning is not the result of Thor farting is a cautionary tale of subscribing weird and currently unexplained phenomenon into the supernatural category just because it doesn't have a current scientific explanation.

Quote

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?

What the people at EvC are capitalizing on is the idea that every religion, including Christianity, believes something fantastical on faith irrespective (and often despite) evidence. It is that common thread which they are seizing upon.

Regarding main-stream science, when you look at what religious people disagree with, they disagree with things because they go against their religious beliefs. Judaeo-Christian creationists reject evolution because the Earth is too young from their perspective. Hindu creationists reject evolution because the main-stream timeline is too short from their perspective. The underlying, fundamental, point of contention is not actually evidence (even if the evidence supports their claims) - that's just window dressing to bolster their views. Rather, the fundamental issue is that the main-stream position goes against their religious beliefs. Unless someone is willing to entertain that their religious beliefs are wrong, no amount of evidence will convince them they are wrong as they will do whatever mental gymnastics is required to create a story/explanation for why their religious beliefs are still true and/or why the evidence (no matter how correct or well supported that evidence is) is simply wrong or misinterpreted.

I know you will likely say atheists suffer from a similar pride as it is human nature. To that, I would say atheists certainly can and do exhibit similar traits. However, regarding science, specifically in the umbrella of "evolution" debate, I'll note that evolution is fundamentally different in that the core ideas are not religiously motivated as seen by the fact that people from many types of religious backgrounds accept evolution as the best scientific explanation, whereas the dissenters of "evolution" fracture into various incompatible camps based on their underlying religious beliefs (like the Christian vs. Hindu creationists).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms