Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

reply to post by Aermacchi


Cool beans!!!

Nice to know this, Aermacchi!!!

If I knew how to link YouTubes, I would. It's just, I've seen a lot of stuff, and have formed an opinion as a result.

I must respect yours, as well......

Originally posted by melatonin


Lucky that you're not, then. I suppose that's a bit like theists who think that without god morals don't exist. Amazing that atheists and determinists aren't just psychopaths, eh?

[edit on 23-3-2009 by melatonin]

Hehe I wouldn't say we think they don't exist, we think they would exist and speaking of psychopaths whose morals were influenced by Darwinism and their Atheisim.

Ted Bundy = Atheist

John Wayne Gacey = Atheist

The two kids killing classmates at columbine saying Natural selection is a beautiful thing then pointing the gun at a teachers forehead asking "do you believe in God" she said yes, I guess he didn't like that answer,

BANG!

She had her belief proven and later that day, her belief was proven to him also.

Jeffery Dahmer = Atheist and also thought we were just blobs of goop anyway as he explained to prosecuters the reasons he killed so many and his sexuality the product of his primal urges mixed with his rage.

Richard Speck = Atheist killed eight student nurses in chicago

The only one that became a Christian was Dahmer before being killed by another inmate. The inmate didn't forgive him and perhaps society wouldn't but I believe his sins were.

I could list a lot more psychopaths if you like.

I think the Bible staying clear and having distinct written rules like the ten commandments gives us a very good very stationary mechanism for our moral compass and anything straying to far off can be easily calibrated back to where we all belong using them.

Our many law use a standard like them and I can honestly say, I know some people who are alive today merely because it is illegal,,

to kill them

Originally posted by Aermacchi
having said, that What evolutionists try to do is to either re-define science to only include “natural” processes, (as if intelligent causes are non-natural), or try to tie other the competing theory such as ID to the supernatural.

lol, science is methodological naturalism. Thus, it sort of makes sense that it is somewhat constrained to testing nature. However, it can and has been applied to testing potential supernatural explanations - for example, prayer studies (no evidence of efficacy) and even biblical YEC (falsified).

When you develop methodological supernaturalism, then we can go beyond testing the real-world.

They think that if ID is tied to the supernatural then it has violated some arbitrary rule of science because as everyone knows super natural = God = Religion = not science = Judge Jones, Dover vs Kitzmiller = Them right, us wrong etc, etc blah blah blah.

ID is tied to the supernatural, its history and source is clear and no amount of obfuscation can hide that. The big problem is the dishonesty of trying to claim it isn't, lol. What happened at Dover was the result of the inability of people pushing these sort of theistic fantasies to realise that they might need to actually live up to the expectations of science before ramming it into a science classroom.

You don't get scientific validity by releasing copious press releases, books, movies, blog posts, and using politics to push untested (and probably untestable) pseudoscientific ideas into the classroom by the back door.

Do the work, then you might have a leg to stand on.

Either that or they try to hold it to some other arbitrary rules of science, never thinking that the reigning paradigm of evolution has no chance of meeting those same standards of the Scientific method. They DON'T!

EXAMPLE:

If anyone were to hold evolution to the same rigors of the scientific method, it trips over the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent EVERY TIME.

lol

Abductive reasoning is common to all science, mainly for hypothesis generation etc. However, it is BS to suggest all science is just abductive reasoning, and the same goes for evolutionary theory. Science is required to make clear testable and falsifiable predictions. And that is why your pet theory has problems, but not evolution. Do you want ID to be falsified? Really? Falsify a magical god? lol. How would we do that? And if we do test and falsify, then....what? You'll be an atheist?

To bypass the problems with solely abductive reasoning, science tests falsifiable hypotheses (indeed, tests the null) and makes tentative inferences from data. ID at its core is not science and cannot meet the requirements of science, as we cannot falsify such an idea - it provides no mechanism, it's so ambiguous it doesn't even provide an identity of the designer, its motivation or anything. As Popper clearly stated, "a theory that is consistent with everything explains nothing." And that's a fair description of the god 'hypothesis'.

It could explain simple design, complex design, bad design, good design, child-like design etc etc and there is no way to suitably justify support for one over the others. All you're left with is science/evolution/abiogenesis can't explain X, therefore god. Nothing more of substance than an argument from ignorance.

Buy a good philosophy of science text, con. Leave all the ID and creationist BS on the shelf. This sort of stuff, in my experience, is taught to 1st year undergrads.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Hehe I wouldn't say we think they don't exist, we think they would exist and speaking of psychopaths whose morals were influenced by Darwinism and their Atheisim.

Ted Bundy = Atheist

John Wayne Gacey = Atheist

The two kids killing classmates at columbine saying Natural selection is a beautiful thing then pointing the gun at a teachers forehead asking "do you believe in God" she said yes, I guess he didn't like that answer,

BANG!

She had her belief proven and later that day, her belief was proven to him also.

Con, sad dude. Pure sophistry.

You mean that I couldn't google and find theistic killers and psychopaths? Is that the best you can do? Not even going to play that game with you.


[edit on 23-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You weren't there? Then who was? and if no one was then how do we falsify this weed? How do we even consider this "Scientific" using the same standards that exclude theories such as ID for instance?

We may not have been there, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be proven false.
It’s chemistry. We may one day do a test which shows that it would be impossible. Just because it hasn’t been proven false doesn’t mean it’s impossible…
With God, however, it is impossible, because even if we travel to the furthest reaches of the Universe, and look in every nook and cranny, you could still say “God is outside our reach”.
There’s a pretty big difference once you think about it.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
“first-cause” scenarios require something non or super natural. If it is true that everything which has a beginning requires a cause, then seeing science has told us the universe, i.e. nature, had a beginning, it also had a cause. Nature by definition could not have originated via natural processes because natural processes exist only in nature.

It’s a paradox to human logic either way. That tells me one thing, that there is more outside our Universe which would not be bound by our laws. Either that or our Universe itself is very different than we think it is, and has always existed in some form or another…
But these things are not scientific theories, just ideas...

Originally posted by Aermacchi
just because something is conceivable, that does not also make it possible.. When I was programming for games such as FPS like quake 3 for instance. “collision theory” is a HUGE part of that and is very similar to computer models I have heard about to explain best conceivable naturalistic explanation for the formation of the Earth and Moon HOWEVER they do not mean that such a scenario is even possible in most cases.

I didn’t know you were a programmer… What games did you work on? Maybe I’ve played some of them . I used to program inferior games (my own crappy games), but I never really had the patience for it…

Originally posted by Aermacchi
What evolutionists try to do is to either re-define science to only include “natural” processes, (as if intelligent causes are non-natural), or try to tie other the competing theory such as ID to the supernatural.

Well, science should only include natural processes. Everything in our Universe (that I know of) has a cause. That cause can be examined and taken apart. But God can not be examined in any natural sense. Saying “Some supreme being got up one day and decided to make the Universe” just doesn’t cut it…
There's just no science in that. None.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
They think that if ID is tied to the supernatural then it has violated some arbitrary rule of science because as everyone knows super natural = God = Religion = not science = Judge Jones, Dover vs Kitzmiller = Them right, us wrong etc, etc blah blah blah.

No, it’s about understanding cause/reaction. You can’t do that with a deity.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Who makes up such rules? Especially when those same rules seem to never apply to Science anyway, only to the ones you and others claim is NOT science.

No, everything in science follows a process. ID doesn’t follow that process because there are no answers, and even if there were, they would just make more questions, for example who created the creator?
If we are so complex and ordered that we must have been created, than said creator would have to be much more complex and ordered, so who created him? Himself? If so, how?
That’s not science, that’s religion.
And everything in between is just a guess, no observable data, no testing, nothing...

Originally posted by Aermacchi
If anyone were to hold evolution to the same rigors of the scientific method, it trips over the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent EVERY TIME. The admit it too and yet most science's like cosmology and the statement weed makes as to life just "poofing" into existence as if by magic, does the same exact thing.

But that’s the thing your not getting! It doesn’t ‘poof’, there’s a process.
You’re describing your God, who simply exists. Abiogenesis would be a process, an inevetable process based on the circumstances. That’s the difference that creationists never seem to get. It’s not magic, it’s science. Lightning isn’t ‘magic’, though some may have thought so thousands of years ago. The reason it seemed like magic was because they were ignorant of the process. Science tries to fix that problem.

EVEN IF God exists, and he created us, would there not be a scientific explanation? In the Bible, it says that God created a rainbow, but even if that is the case, it hasn’t stopped us from examining the rainbow and knowing what causes it.
Even if God exists, could we not examine that same process God may have used?

Do you believe God 'poofed' us into existence, or do you believe he used a process (as with the rainbow)?

And if you believe he used a process, then why should you begrudge us for trying to understand that process?

Originally posted by Aermacchi
When Ben Stein asks Prof. Richard Dawkins in the movie "No intelligence allowed" where life began how did it happen, Richard says " We don't know". He is right to say that and most of the evolutionists would counter saying something like "Well what are we supposed to say,, GOD DID IT?"

I happen to think God did it but am told that is a stupid answer because it doesn't answer the question so it is not scientific. My question is, why not? what is so un-scientific that my statement should be labled stupid when Dawkins statement gives no more an answer LESS in fact than mine does. AT least mine gives a possibility, albeit does'nt explain how but that was not it's intention. Their are lots of forces in nature we have called scientific that we can measure and test yet we have no clue what the hell it is.

Because, Dawkins answer was that we don’t know, he never said we don’t have theories, just that we don’t know for certain exactly how it happened. But saying “God did it” is far different, because it not only gives no data about a natural cause, it completely excludes it.
It’s basically passing off the question to an ‘answer’ which not only fails to answer itself but also brings more questions…

You seem to think that abiogenesis is just: We poofed into existence.
It's not! There are theories which go into great detail about it.

Do you have any such theories for Gods existence?

There's a huge difference and it baffles me how some people don't see it.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
We see Creationists giving statistics and impossible odd and probability for all the intricate components of life to have taken place in one place at one time yet what do we get for an answer from Evolutionists to explain this away from the argument??

"Yet we exist!"

I’ve explained countless times that that argument is self contradictory.
If we are too ordered or complex to exist without a creator, than our creator would have to be far more ordered and complex than we are, so where’s his creator? The result (when using such logic, or lack thereof) is a never ending series of creators.

Not only that, but the only statistics I’ve seen are absurd. If you take a quarter and flip it 10,000 times, the odds are extremely low that you will get all heads. But there’s a flawed human perspective in that, because given ANY scenario, the odds will be just as low. What makes it seem otherwise is the fact that you weigh the all heads scenario against EVERY unrecognizable scenario, making it seem impossible!
This is exactly what creationists do, weigh the unrecognizable or unknown scenarios (which is ridiculous in itself, as we could not know such things) against what we know to be fact.
Yes, in such a vast Universe, ANY outcome will be extremely unlikely, but there MUST be an outcome.
And trying to calculate odds for a coin in which you don't even know how many sides or flips there are, is without question, ridiculous.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Then you give the life happened in many places or many other give the multi universe explantion. The universe we live in exists and since it is the only observable verse we have or knew ablout we labeled it the universe. Yet you refuse as does most of the denying science community in evolution, the same prejudice and discrimination used against Sciences like Intelligent Design yet are completely oblivious to the monumental hypocrisy that exists when they give us answers like that.

What you’re talking about is possibilities. ID is a possibility. Just as the multiverse is a possibility. The truth is, science isn’t at the point to explain the existence of our Universe. Everyone has a theory (non scientific), but we lack the knowledge to come to a scientific conclusion. The multiverse should not be a scientific theory any more than ID should, and no one is claiming that it is…

Originally posted by Aermacchi
What is the differnce between the blood of an animal that has died the body laying there next to a living one? They both have the same arteries the same heart lungs, brain, etc. but one has living blood cells and another doesn't. What is it that makes the one blood cell living and the other non living. What is it that we call life.

Functionality.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Is the origin of life explained by natural law?

Nope.

It may be natural given the right circumstances. You can’t say otherwise until you prove it false in a laboratory.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Is all of life’s diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms via common descent/ descent with modification explained by natural law?

Nope.

It is explained by natural law. Natural selection is called “natural selection” for a reason.
If a reaction is explained by a cause with an explanation, it is natural.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Is the origin of nature explained by natural law?

Nope.

You don’t know that it’s not.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
The origin of nature, by definition, could not have been guided by natural law.

You don’t know that. We may not know the extent of natures laws. There’s always an explanation.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
And yes, what about the origins of those natural laws themselves?

Who knows.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
THIS is why they don't want to go there weed and if you did you know what conclusion you would be forced to come to??

You’re right, scientific theories do not try to explain things beyond our understanding. ID is not exempt from that.

If you really want ID to be a scientific theory, then work on an explanation to explain the cause (God).
That's what a theory is.
We don't just say "abiogenesis did it".
We say "abiogenesis may have done it, and here's how".
Once you have a "God did it, and here's the explanation", people will look at it differently than "God did it.".

I guarantee you that.


And in your search for such an explanation, maybe you'll realize WHY ID is not scientific, because... you can't go anywhere with it...
And until you can, it's not science.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by TruthParadox]

Good work TruthParadox, I very rarely stick around these types of threads because the arguments are usually very uninteresting. You employ a great deal of reason and logic in your argument, may I suggest that there is also another dimension to this argument. Here is my postulate; this resurgence in creationism may have a strategic political design. That the institutions which possess real power in this country are becoming more and more authoritarian and autocratic. Creationism may be viewed not just as a result of a full fledged offensive against the free system of education, but as an authoritarian assult on free thought. Creationism seeks to dominate every nook and cranny of the "believer's" brain, blind obedience to authority! During the rise of the fascist states in Europe in the 1930's the church played a key role in propogating the mismash of fascist ideology in Germany, Italy and in Nationalist Spain. Why would we assume that the rich and powerful in the US would not also use the church as a strategic weapon of class warfare?

I know a co-worker of mine who is disseminating anti-semetic liturature at his church. He is a staunch creationist and a strict opponent of "Jewish Communism." Those were his exact words, very similar to Joseph Goebbel's coinage of "Jewish Bolshevism." The fundamental mechanics of class warfare require the poor to enslave themselves. The concepts of "Godless Communism" and "Jewish Bolshevism" were outgrowths of the Spanish Nationalist Falange and the the German National Socialist parties respectively. These concepts were not only propogated through the offical organs of the state, but also propogated by the churches. The role the churches played in the ascention of fascism in Europe was summerized by the Suttgard Declaration of Guilt, which was a declaration issued on October 19, 1945 by the Council of the Protestant Church of Germany, it continues:

With great pain we say: By us infinite wrong was brought over many peoples and countries. That which we often testified to in our communities, we express now in the name of the whole church: We did fight for long years in the name of Jesus Christ against the mentality that found its awful expression in the National Socialist regime of violence; but we accuse ourselves for not standing to our beliefs more courageously, for not praying more faithfully, for not believing more joyously, and for not not loving more ardently.

Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor who was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for the duration of the war, wrote this poem:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

This is how a class war is waged, by the rich against the poor. Here, the church and christianity proper, were used to subjugate the uneducated and poor to militancy against the very social reforms which would have greatly benefited themselves. Sadly enough, today these very same techniques are being employed en masse throughout the rural conservative bible belt. There are several churches in my area which hold local militia meetings monthly. I have a friend of mine who attended a "Bible Boot Camp" a couple summers ago, they even trained with real assult rifles. My fears are that creationist theories represent a radical shift to the right, even overt militancy in some cases. The rich, historically have never fought their own wars, it is we, the poor who fight and die in these wars in order that the Rich may continue to subjugate the poor.

I thought this thread was about abiogenesis! 21 pages into the discussion and it's completely deteriorated into the same muck that permeates this forum through and through: Science vs. religion! Haven't we beaten this dead horse enough already? Why can't anyone ever stay ON TOPIC in this forum? That's why I (almost) never come here. Once every few months, I'll see something in "recent posts" that catches my interest and peak in but each and every time, I'm disappointed!

BTW, I'm a scientist who would LOVE to have a serious discussion about current models for abiogenesis without all the religious derailing that goes on in here. All the ID proponents are just running interference in here and because they manage to change the subject each and every time, they wind up "winning" (in that SCIENTIFIC FACTS are abandoned by the wayside) as everyone is lured onto their home turf (speaking from the heart, as opposed to an intellectual standpoint). I propose we scientists, hit the "ignore" button each and every time this happens from now on so we can have a serious discussion about the subject at hand without letting fantasy get in the way.

There is a "Theory" that there is this entity named "God" who created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is on it, in just 6 days. Some literature about a Son, various Angels, fallen or still up there in this Heaven place no one seems to be able to locate. Many Christians claim the Creation of Earth and Life was not much more than 6000 years ago.


Lots of unknowns. Other than some texts attributed to this God, which seem to be ghost-written, no real proof of Him. Other than some hoaxes and fakery, no photographs or recordings. Descriptions are inconsistent.
He is often depicted in illustrations and paintings as having a long white beard and wearing little. Sometimes a flowing robe on stormy days.
He is said to literally knows everything, but is known to be bad-tempered at times and behave in a punitive manner. And get this - people who are dead but did not sin or were forgiven are living with him in this Heaven place no one seems to be able to find.

As with the unsubstantiated Evolution, the existence of this perpetually elusive God and his, home, and entourage are no more than a "Theory."

Right folks?


Mike




[edit on 24-3-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by spy66
Logic is not something we are borne with. Logic is something we acquire through experience.

superfluous statement.

But Logic can still be divided by two different experiences. 1. Day to day experiences. 2 what you are thought.

You are mixing up “logic” with internal and external “inferences”

You have all heard the saying: Theory and practice could be two different things. Like the theory might not work in practice.

Theory and practice are two different things.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish

 

JPhish....I was impressed by the response from 'Spy66'.

Sorry, but I missed the awe in spys’ post.

I did try to read your last two posts....and, again, started to get a headache.

Sorry.

Now, without 'flaming'....please tell me why it is necessary to 'pull-apart' a post by someone else in order to make YOUR point?

pull apart? I’m showing everyone in this thread the same courtesy I would like to be shown. It starts with not quote mining. So I attempt to quote as much as I can within their posts out of respect for what they said. I wish for others to understand me and I wish to understand others. Where is the problem exactly?

I write this, after giving up on trying to make any sense of your two responses (no offence).

none taken

Just....as has been repeated, over and over in this thread, 'abiogenisis' is an entirely separate discipline from 'evolution'. One should be careful not to conflate the two, except as inasmuch as they might intertwine....which is the problem here. (edit)....a most awkward sentence, sorry....stet.

Um . . . I haven’t been discussing evolution or abiogenisi.

Or, to be more specific....the concept of 'abiogenisis' is well-founded in organic chemistry (plenty of YouTube videos to research, and decide for yourself).

Or, to be more specific....the concept of 'abiogenisis' is well-founded in organic But....set that aside, for the moment....

Uhhhh?

I perceive this as a failure of imagination. That is, modern evolution 'deniers' view it (abiogenesis) as happening in one place, in one part of the planet. See where I'm going with this???

do tell . . . ‘cause this is completely out of context so far.

In all of the World's Ocean's, and given the 'infinite time' that God believers ascribe to him/her....why not just let the 'spark of life' happen, and realize that the rest is, as they say, 'History'???

I’m “traveling through another dimension” . . .

Who cares whether it was Divine, or not????

“A journey into a wondrous land” . . .

It's what's in our brains that matter.....

“That's the signpost up ahead” . . .

Originally posted by melatonin
Logic is just intellectual masturbation until applied to the real-world.

Well said.

The evidence is pretty clear and any kind of special pleading to pull yourself from your own supposed paradox is laughable. Indeed, your earlier two-step jig to dodge questions on this issue is great stuff.

Glad you liked it, but I’m still not in the paradox because I never claimed to know that my logic was flawed through my own logic.

Simply saying that psychology is applied biology is missing the whole range of what psychology is. I agree to a degree, as some areas are, but there are wide areas of psychology that barely touch on biology.

Without biology there would not be psychology . . . perhaps some aspects of psychology would remain after biology is removed, but it would be a completely different animal at that point.

Yes, and it isn't a flawed inference. It's a very clear one supported by a wealth of evidence. Even you're own claims here are evidence of the issue. Some sandwiches are made of ham, therefore all sandwiches are made of ham.

explain?

A fallacy - special pleading.

Not at all.

And I suppose to solve the problem you make stuff up about supernatural influences.

solve what problem?

The problem is that your claim of a paradox had nothing to do with ideology.

rephrase this please, because what you’re trying to say here is unclear to me.

Nor does my acceptance that human reasoning is less than perfect, it is purely evidence-based and you are only helping to bolster that position.

It can’t be purely evidence based, because YOU must sift through that evidence, using your LOGIC which you believe to be flawed. you are and have been in a paradox this entire time Mel.

Blunders? lol

Yes blunders.

Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, constrained.

What have you

Lucky that you're not, then.

Who says that I’m not a naturalist?

I suppose that's a bit like theists who think that without god morals don't exist.

that’s different.

Amazing that atheists and determinists aren't just psychopaths, eh?

Not at all, most people are cowards.

But I suggest that you cling onto your theism, it's probably for the best.

My theism? What theism is that?

The dude was previously an excellent father and husband, and he was afterwards.

says the doctors who want more money for their research.

Throw off the shackles of dualism, it's a useless fantasy and is not consistent with neuroscience.

Swing and a miss; not a fan of dualism.

The evidence is pretty clear that you are a result of your brain. The little homonculus 'you' is a result of brain activity.

the evidence is pretty clear? Care to elucidate that for me?

Originally posted by JPhish
I don’t see it happening any other way. If you’re in a naturalist universe, and everything is predetermined by nature. It seems to me that something would have to exist “outside” of nature so as to not be bound by it.

Originally posted by melatonin
Yup, I wuz right.

Doubt it.

Originally posted by JPhish
So then you agree that “free-will” as it is understood by most of the world is not applicable in a naturalist universe or other hypothetical universes?

(This) is not correct.

Originally posted by JPhish
Perhaps I’m just a cynic, but I have trouble swallowing that entire position. Sounds to me like people not taking responsibility for them selves. It’s almost as contrived as “restless leg syndrome”. Classifying people in such ways does not serve to help these individuals; it only serves to enable them to continue their inappropriate behavior under the specious asylum of a diagnosed illness.

Originally posted by melatonin

Oh please elaborate on the smiley!

[edit on 3/24/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
Glad you liked it, but I’m still not in the paradox because I never claimed to know that my logic was flawed through my own logic.

Aye, you'd rather dodge the question. It was a pretty simple one. If you have ever made an error in reasoning, the answer would be that your reasoning is not perfect.

But no matter what dancing you do, the evidence is clear.

Without biology there would not be psychology . . . perhaps some aspects of psychology would remain after biology is removed, but it would be a completely different animal at that point.

A lot of psychology would remain.

Yes, and it isn't a flawed inference. It's a very clear one supported by a wealth of evidence. Even you're own claims here are evidence of the issue. Some sandwiches are made of ham, therefore all sandwiches are made of ham.

explain?

I explained it earlier.

Your logic leads you to believe your logistic abilities are imperfect. That’s a paradox. You forfeit your own (possible) ability of having any real insight at all.

The evidence of people producing an incorrect answer to 223x675 leads me to believe that our mathematical abilities are imperfect (i.e., we can make errors). Hence we have to forfeit our (possible) ability of having any mathematical insight at all...

It's a BS argument.

A fallacy - special pleading.

Not at all.

Oh yes it is[/panto stylee]

And I suppose to solve the problem you make stuff up about supernatural influences.

solve what problem?

The one you think exists.

The problem is that your claim of a paradox had nothing to do with ideology.

rephrase this please, because what you’re trying to say here is unclear to me.

Your quote is above, it's very clear and has nothing to do with ideology.

Originally posted by JPhish

The evidence is pretty clear that you are a result of your brain. The little homonculus 'you' is a result of brain activity.

the evidence is pretty clear? Care to elucidate that for me?

Did so earlier.

Nor does my acceptance that human reasoning is less than perfect, it is purely evidence-based and you are only helping to bolster that position.

It can’t be purely evidence based, because YOU must sift through that evidence, using your LOGIC which you believe to be flawed. you are and have been in a paradox this entire time Mel.

Nope, because it isn't one.

Sandwiches are made of ham, therefore all sandwiches are made of ham.

Human reasoning can be less than perfect, therefore all human reasoning is less than perfect.

Blunders? lol

Yes blunders.

I'm sure if you repeat it over and over at least you and con will be convinced.

Originally posted by JPhish

Lucky that you're not, then.

Who says that I’m not a naturalist?

I do.

You made it pretty clear earlier with the all don't knows=supernatural.

My theism? What theism is that?

The G*d (lol) you play hide the sausage with.

says the doctors who want more money for their research.

I think that could be considered the logical fallacy of some sort, but you've racked enough up in the last few posts for it to be of little note.

Anyway, your true colours shine through in the last few posts, J. Take care.

Originally posted by melatonin

Oh please elaborate on the smiley!

It's pretty simple, the statement was rather pathetic and made me go 'wow' - I expected better. I hope you never get near particular patient populations.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion


And now your only contribution to the thread is 'off topic' as you completely failed to discuss the topic but rather the people discussing the topic...
Funny how that works , eh?

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, you'd rather dodge the question. It was a pretty simple one. If you have ever made an error in reasoning, the answer would be that your reasoning is not perfect.

Not at all, my reasoning could be 100% perfect in every sense of the word. Reason is nothing without the inferences it is applied to. If the inferences are false, it does not mean the logic used to deduce truth from those inferences is flawed. You my friend are incorrect.

But no matter what dancing you do, the evidence is clear.

it’s clear that through your logic you know your logic is flawed? I’m afraid not.

A lot of psychology would remain.

It really wouldn’t. Instead of conjecture, please, tell me how psychology could exist without logic. It’s where everything starts. Logic-Math-Physics-Chemistry-Biology-Psychology. You can’t have math without logic, you can’t have physics without math and so on and so forth.

Yes, and it isn't a flawed inference. It's a very clear one supported by a wealth of evidence.

a wealth of evidence interpreted by your flawed logic. How clear is very clear? Is very clear synonymous with “I trust my insight and my beliefs”?

Even you're own claims here are evidence of the issue.

evidence interpreted by your flawed logic.

Some sandwiches are made of ham, therefore all sandwiches are made of ham.

obviously not true and it does not apply to anything I’ve claimed.

Originally posted by JPhish
Your logic leads you to believe your logistic abilities are imperfect. That’s a paradox. You forfeit your own (possible) ability of having any real insight at all.

Originally posted by melatonin
The evidence of people producing an incorrect answer to 223x675 leads me to believe that our mathematical abilities are imperfect (i.e., we can make errors). Hence we have to forfeit our (possible) ability of having any mathematical insight at all...

Producing an incorrect or correct answer is not solely dependant upon logic.

It's a BS argument.

And the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to deceive us right?

Oh yes it is[/panto stylee] (A fallacy - special pleading. )

Please, where have I displayed this fallacy?

Originally posted by melatonin
The problem is that your claim of a paradox had nothing to do with ideology.

Originally posted by JPhish
rephrase this please, because what you’re trying to say here is unclear to me.

Originally posted by melatonin
-my- quote is above, it's very clear and has nothing to do with ideology.

so because you say that it has nothing to do with ideology it is so?

Nope, because it isn't -a paradox-

It is if you claim to know that the possible truths, procured from questionable evidence, interpreted by purportedly flawed logic, have lead to a truth by anything other than insight or chance.

Human reasoning can be less than perfect, therefore all human reasoning is less than perfect.

obviously not true, and nothing I’ve been advocating.

I'm sure if you repeat it over and over at least you and con will be convinced.

I’m not wearing ruby red slippers.

Originally posted by JPhish
Who says that I’m not a naturalist?

Originally posted by melatonin
I do.

You made it pretty clear earlier with the all don't knows=supernatural.

Or may be you believe exactly what I want you to believe. Everything you presume to know about me, you believe you know, because I want you to. But I will not tell you whether I am a naturalist or not because “The secret impresses no one. The trick you use it for is everything.”

You should understand this because you too keep certain secrets knowing they give you an advantage. One of them on this forum is your gender. But I figured out a while ago that if you are male, you are undoubtedly gay. The other possibility is you are a female.

Originally posted by JPhish
My theism? What theism is that?

Originally posted by melatonin
The G*d (lol) you play hide the sausage with.

Well I’m neither gay, in prison nor a woman; so you’re more likely to play that game.

I think that could be considered the logical fallacy of some sort,

Probably not, there might be a clear conflict of interest. If the doctors who performed the surgery obtained sponsoring from psychological research centers then they are more inclined to endorse the psychologist’s hypothesis. Then of course there is the strong possibility that the patient and his family were/are suffering from Munchausen syndrome.

but you've racked enough up in the last few posts for it to be of little note.

You shouldn’t cry fallacies when there are none to be had.

Anyway, your true colours shine through in the last few posts, J. Take care.

so you believe.

It's pretty simple, the statement was rather pathetic and made me go 'wow' –

“WOW” can mean many different things.

I expected better.

better what?

I hope you never get near particular patient populations.

Too late

[edit on 3/25/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
Not at all, my reasoning could be 100% perfect in every sense of the word. Reason is nothing without the inferences it is applied to. If the inferences are false, it does not mean the logic used to deduce truth from those inferences is flawed. You my friend are incorrect.

What a bind you've made for yourself.

I'll pick on the latest fallacies...

Oh yes it is[/panto stylee] (A fallacy - special pleading. )

Please, where have I displayed this fallacy?

Every time you claim to be immune to a paradox of your own making for little reason than because you say so.

Originally posted by melatonin
The problem is that your claim of a paradox had nothing to do with ideology.

And it doesn't. The quote of your repeated claim was presented, and it is again below. However, to pull yourself from the supposed paradox, you do no more than claim your ideology is bulletproof, lol. And that is special pleading.

so because you say that it has nothing to do with ideology it is so?

You quote was clear, J.

Your logic leads you to believe your logistic abilities are imperfect. That’s a paradox. You forfeit your own (possible) ability of having any real insight at all.

Says nothing about ideology. Indeed, isn't even dependent on it in any way. The only way out of your supposed paradox is for someone to accept that they have perfect logistic abilities.

Hence your evasive dancing. You either fall into a supposed paradox of your own making or show extreme hubris and arrogance.

You should understand this because you too keep certain secrets knowing they give you an advantage. One of them on this forum is your gender. But I figured out a while ago that if you are male, you are undoubtedly gay. The other possibility is you are a female.

lol

Advantage?

You've gotta be scheitten me. I see how you criticise people's ideology and beliefs and then play the 'mine doesn't matter', that is just more of your evasiveness. So it's not red slippers, it's more a case of thinking you're Mr Oz, hiding behind a curtain like ya mam's petticoat. I can see an advantage to holding ideology/belief back whilst criticing others - but for someone to be ambiguous over sexuality and gender? lol

I think that could be considered the logical fallacy of some sort,

Probably not, there might be a clear conflict of interest.

Nope, it's a fallacy. Actually an ad hom/appeal to motive. If you actually attempted to account for the evidence, then ad hommed them it would be fairly acceptable. For example:

Your claim that A is a paradox is BS, because X, Y, and Z. Therefore you are wrong. Oh, and you are also a dufus.

That's not so bad. But to attempt to refute a claim purely based on imaginary nefarious motives is a fallacy.

You shouldn’t cry fallacies when there are none to be had.

lol

so you believe.

I've actually noted your Anti-Science Syndrome a few times.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Every time you claim to be immune to a paradox of your own making for little reason than because you say so.

I’ve explained many times that I don’t claim to know my logic is flawed through flawed logic as you do. Therefore I’m not in the paradox, and you are. It’s REALLY easy to understand.

Originally posted by melatonin
The problem is that your claim of a paradox had nothing to do with ideology.

You admitted many posts back that you are basing everything off of a feeling.

Previously posted by melatonin
. . . In other situations, I feel the full control of my consciousness, as I sift through past experiences, future consequences and situations, and my current subjective state to determine my next action/decision.

Previously posted by JPhish
Just because you “feel” control doesn’t mean that you have it. You’re determining your thoughts by feeling which as we know is irrational to do. For a theory that claims to be so scientific with experiments and testing, your only source of evidence is now FEELING, not rationality.

If your beliefs are organized, as yours are, you now have an ideology.

. . . to pull yourself from the supposed paradox, you do no more than claim your ideology is bulletproof, lol. And that is special pleading.

I don’t need to pull myself from the paradox, I have never been in the paradox; never did I claim to know that my logic was flawed through flawed logic. It’s not special pleading, in any sense of the word.

Previously posted by JPhish
Your logic leads you to believe your logistic abilities are imperfect. That’s a paradox. You forfeit your own (possible) ability of having any real insight at all.

Previously posted by melatonin
Says nothing about ideology. Indeed, isn't even dependent on it in any way.

I never said that the paradox was dependant on ideology.

The only way out of your supposed paradox is for someone to accept that they have perfect logistic abilities.

not at all, never did I claim to know that my logic is flawed through flawed logic. I don’t need a way out of the paradox, because I’ve never been in it. You however, have been in it, or variations of it, this entire time.

Hence your evasive dancing. You either fall into a supposed paradox of your own making or show extreme hubris and arrogance.

not at all.

You've gotta be scheitten me. I see how you criticise people's ideology and beliefs and then play the 'mine doesn't matter', that is just more of your evasiveness.

I don’t criticize beliefs, I criticize logically flawed beliefs. My beliefs should not be of consequence in this particular situation. They simply aren’t applicable.

So it's not red slippers, it's more a case of thinking you're Mr Oz, hiding behind a curtain like ya mam's petticoat.

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

I can see an advantage to holding ideology/belief back whilst criticing others - but for someone to be ambiguous over sexuality and gender? lol

Anytime that you know something, someone else doesn’t, however small, it gives you an edge.

Nope, it's a fallacy. Actually an ad hom/appeal to motive. If you actually attempted to account for the evidence, then ad hommed them it would be fairly acceptable. For example:

Your claim that A is a paradox is BS, because X, Y, and Z. Therefore you are wrong. Oh, and you are also a dufus.

That's not so bad. But to attempt to refute a claim purely based on imaginary nefarious motives is a fallacy.

I presented it as a hypothetical situation. Never did I claim it to be a truth. I said “MAYBE”. Your claim had little evidence to begin with. The evidence it did have could have been completely circumstantial for many reasons besides the few reasons I listed in my post.

I was not claiming that YOU had motives for believing them, which is what that fallacy implies; I was implying that the doctors almost undoubtedly had a conflict of interest which makes their findings unsuitable because THEY had motives and their findings can not be trusted as reliable.

I’m currently involved in a similar court case where the surgeons refused to do follow a up test on a patient who claimed to still have pain after surgery. By performing the tests the doctors would have proved that the surgery they performed was unsuccessful. SO, because of the CONFLICT OF INTEREST, they attempted to diagnose the patient with various psychosomatic illnesses over the course of an entire year!

Months later, the patient retested with a different doctor whom was not recommended by the surgeons and the test proved that the surgery was unsuccessful. The surgeons and the doctors they referred the patient to are currently being sued up the yinyang for malpractice.

I've actually noted your Anti-Science Syndrome a few times.

Swing and a miss.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by JPhish]