Thanks again for the insight you provide, Elvis.
an I see all your comments on the film are based on other folks comments.
Yes, all the ones between you posting the link and this one that discuss the videos. This = 0. Making up facts to base your argument on is fantasy Elvis.
Actually I looked at the video, long enough to see that he was saying Newtonian physics controlled molecular behavior, at which point (~1 minute in) I knew he was a quack selling
shinola. Then I did a google on his name and found out that he
IS a quack selling shinola. At this point anything he says suddenly became irrelevant to objective reality, as he is not concerned with objective reality, but with convincing sufficient gullible and ignorant people with his scam into buying his shinola. For selling shinola he doesn't need to discuss truth, he just needs to
sound convincing. This is something that skeptical thinking people understand.
It's amazing that people that can be so skeptical about the worth of even thinking of discussing the truth that evolution - the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation - is true (see
SoSick comment before yours), can just roll over and play
brain-dead for people like Bruce Lipton and the other con-artists in the world.
Russ, ya know , ya might just be inerested in that film. It may not be ezactly on topic, but it sure is dang empowerin and oughta be worth a viewin, prolly belongs eleswheres, kinda like me.
Adios
Are you saying Elvis has left the building?
Yeah, Russ would probably like it. Right down his alley.
We are now at 22 out of 34 messages being from creationists, and not
one of them willing to discuss the issue, while Non-creatinists don't seem to have that problem. Any idea what the difference is?
The issue comes down to how do you tell truth from fiction, and scams from reason. One way is to apply the "
Russ Tanner Manifesto" test:
One of the most important points I've been attempting to convey all along is this:
When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well.
This distraction—in order to be effective—must be so overwhelming in quantity so as to cause the one being deceived (the target) to completely forget the basic facts of the lie—the fundamentals.
Another way is to see if you can find independent objective evidence for or against the claim. This, particularly finding invalidating evidence, can be effective in many cases.
A third way is to compare it against what you believe to be true, however here you are limited by the truth of your beliefs, and this will never test your beliefs for validity.
The second way is typical of the scientists or the naturalist philosopher's way, while the third way, in my experience, is typical of the people that don't have a scientific bent (regardless of whether they are creationist or not), sometimes to the exclusion of all other ways.
Enjoy.
Note: [color:"green"]My time is limited, so I choose threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
