Watch "Gradual Change of Things" or "Development" (Over Time) in Action

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: whereislogic

You need serious help using the English language. Not trying to be mean here, but the propaganda is getting extremely old and you can't articulate a sentence to save your life. Please stop the run on sentences. It is impossible to follow and is the main reason nobody even bothers to argue with you any more. You are propaganda machine, plain and simple. You rely on over talking a subject just to sound smart when in reality you sound like you just learned the English language recently. 1 paragraph is supposed to be 3-5 concise sentences, not one single run on sentence that confuses people because it doesn't even make a point.

You could have just said:

It was Tzarchasm that called Bill Nye a "Professor",

and it would have had the exact same meaning and saved us all the headache of reading your dozen or so tangents in the middle that have nothing to do with your point.

Gees Barcs, how many headaches have your diatribes caused
You must have personally saved asprin from going bankrupt with the drivel you spout and the brain pain from your constant nonsense you have spouted

You strike me as a fundamentalist nutter
Stop it

a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm not the one that is intentionally trying to confuse people with semantics and going off on the same played out tangents over and over and over again. If you wish to debate science, you need to at least learn the English language first.

You strike me as a fundamentalist nutter.

This is a sentence that goes straight to the point. If this sentence came from Whereislogic it would look like:

You (and I don't mean you personally i mean people with the so called agnostic philosophy of vagueness (if you can even call it philosophy, real philosophy makes legitimate connections using logic) and those that deny my religion (which is actually absolute truth)) strike me (not literally you strike me meaning you give me that impression, which is not to say you impress me, just that I see you in that light) as a fundamentalist (although it's really funny that you accuse me of fundamentalism as I believe the bible is 100% word of god, but am not extreme) nutter.

It's downright confusing. At least when I make long posts, they use proper sentence structure and make numerous legitimate points. I don't need an entire paragraph's worth of words to type one sentence. This guy just goes off on every unnecessary tangent because he knows if he keeps it simple it will be easy to demolish his argument. He's been doing this crap for years and it's why he types so much but says so little. See the difference?

Sorry, double post.

a reply to: Barcs

I am sorry Barcs, I havnt a clue what you are trying to explain

a reply to: Raggedyman

LOL. What else is new?

a reply to: Raggedyman

He was trying to further advance his negative picture painting. Trying to find fault with commentary lay-out to distract from the inconvenient facts and discredit the commentary that contains them. Discredit the person, avoid the points made or facts shared. Standard M.O. That is, if someone isn't too busy misrepresenting what someone else was saying to argue a straw man argument, we've been already through that with the "are you saying..."-type phrases used by those affected by this behaviour; which was slanderous picture painting with the accusation of "quote mining" along with a straw man argument. The term "quote mining" wasn't spelled out every time but often implied in the early pages of this thread by a couple of different posters. Phage, Buzzywigs and Cypress to be exact. The patterns in human behaviour are very telling. So far, none of the content relevant to this thread that I have posted has been responded to in any reasonable fashion that demonstrates someone's willingness to give these subjects even an inkling of serious thought and honest evaluation, possibly in order to make some reasonable commentary about it. They don't mind discussing or debating about whether or not anyone should take my commentary seriously though, or respond to it seriously with a genuine appreciation for discussing and figuring out what is true/factual and what is not true/factual, i.e. false regarding these subjects.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well let me be hounest and reasonable
Evolution, from a secular standpoint is hounest and reasonable, just not logical if you think about it sincerely as a secularist
I can't argue with their position, I once held it

I agree, evolution does not make sense logically, having said that, neither does creation

It's called faith for a reason, though I agree with you, I understand the atheist logicalexecutedlogical, spell check cool.

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm not trying to paint you in a negative light. I'm trying to get you to get to the friggin point, instead of going off on all these unnecessary tangents. I wanted to have a real conversation, but the way you word everything makes it very difficult to focus on your actual points. I'm trying to help you but every time I point this out you get super defensive and claim I'm attacking you. Your posts are 50% JW propaganda and 50% unrelated tangents. Believe what you want to believe, I'm not discouraging that, but attacking a field of science when you know next to nothing about it and get all your info from propaganda sites is a bit dishonest, sorry.

a reply to: Barcs

I don't think your first 2 comments in this thread are an effiicient way to achieve "a real conversation". You may want to rethink your strategy if you are being honest about your motives for making comments. I also found it interesting how you went dark (quiet) after asking "Can you please just post the science directly, instead of youtube videos?" and I posted a whole bunch of additional* facts (knowledge/science) related to the subjects in this thread and discussed by several scientists who have researched the matter more thoroughly than most people and have come to a set of rational conclusions regarding these subjects (or they were sharing and talking about their observations). Sources were given in the follow-up comment. No response to anything in that comment. *: additional, cause I had already posted quite a bit of facts (knowledge/science) related to these subjects (evolutionary philosophies and myths) before your seemingly insincere requests (seemingly because of no positive reaction upon receiving what was asked for and ignoring what was already given). It seems more of an act.

I also find it irrational to imply that somehow youtube videos aren't good enough (or even incapable) of demonstrating, teaching or sharing facts (knowledge/science) related to these subjects or in support of anything that was said or expressed, even if what was expressed were mere personal emotions regarding the behaviour of posters on ATS and mereley meant to augment the unimportant parts of my commentary (such as the videos from the Blackadder TV-show that I used just before you made your comment). In the OP, videos were also used to present concepts for consideration, such as the concept (or effect/phenomenon) of things going from a functionally orderly state to a disfunctionally disorderly state and vice versa so that a person watching the videos can start thinking about the possible causes for these 2 very different phenomena*, and whether the causes for both phenomena (or processes) may also likewise be very different. *: for which there are also a couple of clues available in the videos. The only rule I follow in imparting knowledge or encouraging people to think about the realities/facts that they are already aware of (knowledge/science they already have) is honesty and I see no logical reason to follow your arbitrary restrictions regarding what I should (or can) or should not use when making comments or threads just because you like to discredit all my commentary by pointing at the comments that use youtube videos or sources that are not to your liking (while not using the same complaint when others are using videos in support of evolutionary philosophies or anything that doesn't qualify as "beneficial teaching", 2 Timothy 4:3,4, i.e. when it's tickling your ears it's allright, there's no problem; others are doing the same thing that don't agree with the evolutionary philosophies that you often try to defend or promote, also demonstrating 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and using the "youtube videos"-argument* for dismissal and demonstrating the "not put up with"-part of that text). *: or the 'it's just propaganda'-argument (brainwashing, cult, 'it's just faith', implying blind faith and/or promoting selective agnosticism and willful ignorance regarding a fact that was discussed or mentioned, and a bunch of similar arguments)

The facts I've shared regarding realities that are related to the claims within evolutionary philosophies already demonstrate to me who's really using propaganda, brainwashing, indoctrination and manipulative ways of reasoning and arguing about these subjects. Demonstrating all the techniques discussed in the article in my signature (including the next page and other similar articles and books I've read about the subject of mass propaganda, in particular as practiced by the Nazis but also longer ago, my study of it throughout history, especially by philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle), is not a good way to convince me that I'm the one using propaganda here. All it possibly demonstrates is the dishonesty of some people here in what they are willing to discuss and what they won't talk about or acknowledge as being factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error.

a reply to: whereislogic

Unfortunately Barcs is a subject of brainwashing and now is a subjector to others of the same
Barcs has no original thought or capacity to understand others

Oddly enough, Barcs can't read opinions of those who question his beliefs, won't reasonably take a subjective and balanced view of an opposing argument
Surely you can understand that position

Anyway, great argument questioning Barcs capacity to use reason and logic

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: whereislogic

Unfortunately Barcs is a subject of brainwashing and now is a subjector to others of the same
Barcs has no original thought or capacity to understand others

Oddly enough, Barcs can't read opinions of those who question his beliefs, won't reasonably take a subjective and balanced view of an opposing argument
Surely you can understand that position

Anyway, great argument questioning Barcs capacity to use reason and logic

Says the dude that blindly denies all evidence that backs evolution. There is no balanced position here. Science experiments and tests things. It works, end of story. Sorry you hate it so much.

a reply to: whereislogic

I tried numerous times to engage you with your theories, but every time I asked you tough questions to explain how your view is scientific you refused. It goes back much further than this thread. You kept repeating over and over that your claim was based on scientific inference, but not once did you actually provide the inference you claimed was scientific and show the logical connection. You just kept posting JW propaganda that was unrelated. I can't read posts that are just walls of text with off topic tangents out the wazoo. Your refusal to break it down in a simple 2 or 3 point inference says all I really need to hear about this.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: whereislogic

Unfortunately Barcs is a subject of brainwashing and now is a subjector to others of the same
Barcs has no original thought or capacity to understand others

Oddly enough, Barcs can't read opinions of those who question his beliefs, won't reasonably take a subjective and balanced view of an opposing argument
Surely you can understand that position

Anyway, great argument questioning Barcs capacity to use reason and logic

Says the dude that blindly denies all evidence that backs evolution. There is no balanced position here. Science experiments and tests things. It works, end of story. Sorry you hate it so much.

I will read any of your slop that you serve up dear Barcs, most of the time
But everything you serve up is introduced with a statement like "scientists think, evidence assumes, it is understood, we believe"
Science experiments test things, understood? Do you get that? Do you understand?

I love science Barcs, unlike you, you who has to twist meaning into it, who has to read into it to justify your faith.
Read where is logics post again, he pins your tail on perfectly

Here you go Barcs, just want some
Repeatable
Testable
And observable
scientific evidence for evolution, not just a link.
Then YOU explain how it proves evolution to me, how your scientific evidence ( not conjecture) is solid proof. I would be interested
Go get em buddy

a reply to: Barcs
I don't use the word "inference" unless it's in response to someone bringing up the word such as I'm doing in this comment.

I find no need for it. The terminologies "conclusion (from experiments and observations) by induction" and "argument of induction" (which is also Isaac Newton's terminology regarding the topic that became known as "modern science" in my quotations of him) work just fine for me. Of course I tend to use these terminologies after I've given a little bit more information about the topic of inductive reasoning. I find Michael Behe's explanation with the duck quite appropiate to remind people of the important aspects of inductive reasoning vs wishful speculation (wishful thinking, 'just-so' stories, 'maybe-so' stories, 'most likely-so' stories, etc.). Since the presentation from Michael Behe about inductive reasoning is not directly linked in this thread (it is indirectly in the playlist I linked before):

Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe (see 2:40-17:44 + 25:49-28:55 + 29:19-39:28)

Those timeframes are for the main points regarding inductive reasoning, skipping past anything that might distract from that because of the way you've been taught to think and argue about these subjects (especially in response to distracting terminologies such as "irreducible complexity" for which there is a popular straw man argument being refuted because that terminology when used just like that without further specification what one is talking about, such as is being done by those responding to that terminology with a straw man version of it, is conducive for it just like using the term "complexity" without an accurate specification and appropiate or relevant explanation what specific kind of complexity we're talking about here, machinery and technology that demonstrates a level and type of complexity that surpasses the current level of technological advancement in human technology, and conflating that complexity with another type of complexity or misapplying the concept of complexity to things that aren't even all that complex; again, the concept of "complexity" in this sense works as a distraction and I probably shouldn't have even brought up the word to assist in that or trigger that distraction. Complexity is not the main point or argument and neither is "irreducible complexity"; besides if you want to make an argument or point with just 1 word or term making it slightly harder to twist it into a straw man version of the point, it would have been better to go with "interdependency" or "interdependent cofunctionality" when talking about some attributes of the machinery and technology in living cells in living procreating organisms; but again, I guess if you leave out that this functionality is geared towards the preservation and procreation of life, any terminology like that can be twisted to distract from the real issues this subject of interdependent cofunctionality causes for any proposed/suggested gradual multi-generational process of development or cause for the emergence of this interdependent machinery that cannot function properly, as in pass on anything to a next generation, when the other machines they are interdependent with aren't around yet in their complete interdependent cofunctional form, and again, this function is related to being able to pass on anything to a possible next generation).

Below I'm going to break my own rule (or preferred intention) to not use the verb "evolve" in a manner that can be easily misinterpreted compared to what I'm actually talking about. I'm just going to hope some people will understand what concept I'm talking about and what I'm referring to with "evolve"; as explained by my previous commentary about the common denominators in evolutionary philosophies, 'nature did it' or natural processes are the sole cause excluding the process of designing and creating by an intelligent being or beings, including humans, i.e. with this usage of the term, a human designing and creating the type of machinery displayed in the first video in this thread is not a "natural process", not caused by nature alone/exclusively). The concept below also relates to the topic of the interdependent cofunctionality of the machinery and technology in living procreating cells and organisms (organisms procreate, cells&organisms live, just to be clear; this is all about being able to pass anything on that might change in a next generation of living organisms):

If you can't retain you can't evolve. Or you can't evolve when you can't retain.

This is thinking about biology or multiple generations of lifeforms, living organisms as well as the process of going from nonliving to living and the suggested* multiple generations in this process by those willing to respond to the subject of "chemical evolution" a.k.a. "abiogenesis". *: illogical suggestion cause they are not alive and it is not explained how they are able to pass anything on in the storylines, such as the so-called "RNA world hypothesis" where a mythological purely RNA based lifeform is suggested, btw, in my playlist there's a definition given from a biology course about what can be considered "alive", this definition appropiately does not include viruses, but I don't really want to get into that now, it's slightly besides my point; what is nice though is that the video also talks about the subject of interdepency, which is a good combination of subjects to think about when thinking about the evolutionary myths being spread as "science" under the banner of "chemical evolution" and "the chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting Haldane&Oparin and the wikipedia page on abiogenesis) or just using the word "evolved" a lot in the storylines carrying the meaning connected to those philosophies of 'nature dd it'.

The reason why I don't just keep my comment short and say:

If you can't retain you can't evolve.

Is because it then gets easily misinterpreted or twisted into s straw man version or red herring argument to distract from what I'm really talking about when I say something like that. And that counts for most of my elaborations regarding things I say cause the pattern of twisting what someone is really talking about and then responding to that instead (or avoiding the main points or important considerations that conflict with one's beliefs and strong biased way of reasoning) is quite popular and I don't feel like opening up the door further, I like to move that door the other way, as closed off as I can make it.

a reply to: whereislogic
edit: i.e. with this usage of the term "by natural processes alone, caused by nature exclusively, ...evolve...", a human designing and creating the type of machinery displayed in the first video in this thread is not a "natural process", not caused by nature alone/exclusively, it did not "evolve". I am not using the word "evolve" to refer to just any change over time regardless of the cause of that change to conflate and promote evolutionary philosophies as "fact(ual)" as is done by those using the definition including the terminology "allele frequencies" for the word "evolution", that is not the way I'm using the word "evolve" because as I've explained before in more detail, it's quite deceptive and a trick to avoid the real logical issues with the evolutionary philosophies where the words "evolution", "evolve" and all its grammatical forms are in heavy usage to refer simply to 'nature did it'* without backup from facts, evidence or logical justification or reasoning on the "established facts"/realities/certainties/truths. (quoting the Encyclopaedia Britannica)

*: The real God-of-the-Gaps argument that is in use (but most of the times not spelled out as 'nature did it' because of using "evolve", etc.) by those philosophical naturalists and 'pantheists in the closet' projecting that type of argument on people like Isaac Newton and Michael Behe in true 'psychological projection'-style. 'The pot calling the kettle black' and demonstrating Isaiah 5:19,20 who described this behaviour even better than those talking about "psychological projection" or explaining the phrase 'the pot calling the kettle black'. Cause Isaac Newton and Michael Behe are definitely not making a God-of-the-Gaps argument but sharing facts and reasoning on them with a proper use of logic coming to the correct/true/factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/definitive conclusions...in my opinion and according to my research into the matter based on the established facts that are as available to me as they are to everyone else who may read this and watch the videos in that playlist that discuss a lot of facts related to these subjects a person can reason on honestly (which includes being honest with oneself).

Btw, the way Michael Behe uses the word "inference" (without my approval not that he needs it) at 8:27 when he's drawing attention to an important point, is meant as the synonym for "inference": conclusion (and I would like to leave a reminder that this is a rational conclusion based on reasoning properly and effectively* on the facts and evidence). Not "assumption/conjecture/presumption/supposition/speculation/guess/guesswork/hunch/hypothesis" as the word "assumption" is often understood or taken.

*: effectively regarding the pursuit of knowledge/science regarding the matter, determining or finding out the truth/reality of the matter. What one may describe as a proper and effective "scientific method" if one likes that type of terminology, I don't... with the way it's been warped by philosophers promoting wishful speculations, unsupported just-so stories, maybe-so stories and most-likely so stories (all unsupported by the facts and proper reasoning on them, in short, none of the supposed evidence presented for these stories actually works when you think it through).

'The elephant in the living room' (the argument of induction and conclusion by induction regarding at least 1 Designer&Creator with the required attributes for the processes of designing&creating regarding the topic of the origin of life on earth to name one example) can't be blown away with hot air, it still stands large and strong as ever and it keeps on groing:

Or should I use Newton's terminology again, swapping out "hypotheses" for "hot air" since they don't even qualify as hypotheses anymore the way those are often defined or thought of by those proposing these unsupported myths/false stories regarding chemical evolution and biological evolution (the so-called "Endosymbiont hypothesis" referred to as "new science" by Phage and presented in similar fashion by Shapiro is an example of a myth that falls under the topic of "biological evolution", to me it's 'green gold' btw, see commentary earlier).

It "should not be evaded by" hot air. That is if one want to find out the truth of the matter and increase their science/knowledge about this subject in an effective or proper manner. The same methodology Isaac Newton used to discover the law of gravity, the laws of motion, invented calculus, etc. What some would or could call 'gave birth to what became later known as modern science'.

a reply to: whereislogic

edit or addition: ....in my opinion and according to my research into the matter based on the established facts that are as available to me as they are to everyone else who may read this and watch the videos in that playlist that discuss a lot of facts related to these subjects a person can reason on honestly and properly or effectively* (which includes being honest with oneself).

*: properly and effectively, I've spoken about this before. Here's the reason why I keep trying to remind people on how that works and how Newton and others did that effectively in the past, proving that 'it works b.....s' to quote a popular phrase among famous philosophical naturalists such as Dawkins and his fans without getting rude I hope by leaving out the last word which I don't mean like he means it when he says it and after conflating philosophical naturalism and/or evolutionary myths with "science":

THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think.

Source: signature article

I would change that though to remind people that propagandists also like to teach erronous or misleading ways of 'how to think'. So that makes the usage of the verb "shows" above a little more important but it would have been better if they had added "shows you how to think effectively if a person wants to find out the truth/reality of the matter". Of course the writers of that article don't use synonyms as extensively as I do because they do keep it short and succinct. But that shouldn't be much of an issue to anyone if I just want to be extra clear about it. But regarding the article, they shouldn't have to specify that because they already mentioned (on the previous page) how propagandists also like to tell you how to think in a misleading or erronuous manner, or teach misleading or erronuous ways of how to think along with telling you what to think as opposed to 'showing you how to think effectively...etc.' as in demonstrating by discussing for example established facts that have been discovered in the past by a particular way of thinking or methodology (inductive reasoning, 'how to think') showing its effectiveness for its purpose of discovering new facts, or otherwise phrased as making new discoveries. And how one can use this way of thinking or methodology ('how to think': inductive reasoning if you please, can't go wrong with that) to learn new facts that one was previously unaware of right now when properly applied to established facts.

Here's Dr. James Tour (synthetic organic chemist, Phd.) who has another way to talk about or phrase the concept of:

If you can't retain you can't evolve and you can't evolve when you can't retain.

(the 'you' not necessarily referring to persons exclusively, "something" is perhaps more appropiate, but I haven't completely thought it through if the point can be more easily twisted if I say "something", like talking about a completely different subject supposedly evolving without retaining than the subjects I spoke of in this thread concerning evolutionary philosophies involving biology, in other words, the something in that point is still referring to something related to biology and multiple generations of it, but it also counts regarding other things and multiple 'generations' of those things, if that word or something similar applies)

Below in the video from 28:20-29:55:

a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm not playing this game with you again. I will post evidence, you will deny it and claim it doesn't count. There's no point in bringing up the lab experiments on speciation, the fossil record of hominids, geological evidence, or the genetic evidence that pretty much confirms all of Darwin's predictions and shows the mechanisms behind it. It's beyond silly at this point. If you want to debate evolution, become a scientist and present your contradictory findings to academia. Arguing with people on a conspiracy forum about the validity of science and evolution is kind of pointless at this stage in the game. You have nothing to support your position, just denial of evidence.

a reply to: Barcs

That answer there Barcs is why I can tell you hate science.
Deny and poison science at its foundation

a reply to: whereislogic

So out of curiosity, I'm also a Synthetic Organic Chemist, with a PhD, and I disagree with Dr. James Tour . Do we cancel out? I'm also someone degreed in Bioinformatics, a more applicable science for talking about evolution

Dr Tour, specializes in nanotechnology, not evolution. If as a scientist he did, he'd be most likely a bio-organic chemist (as my PhD supervisor was for half his research).

Does it need to be repeated, that just because a single scientist says something, it does not invalidate a scientific theory that we (scientists) agree upon? Yes yes it does.

Dr Tour does not speak for science, hell he does not speak for Synthetic Organic Chemists. Perchance you see the word "organic" and assume that means life?