Back at your revisionist approach, eh CTD?
Still trying to reverse roles, eh RAZD? It is you who hide & I who reveal. I openly defy you to find even one example of me trying to make anything unclear.
No, the "roles" have been pretty well defined for some time: I provide statements based on facts and science, and back them up with substantiation from objective reality, while you avoid substantiation and try to misrepresent what I said.
Have you forgotten who I am? I most certainly do not misrepresent what people say.
And thanks for demonstrating your idea of "hiding the pea". When you presented a graph of curves jimmied to make the curves appear as straight lines, and I tricked you into revealing the truth, I was "hiding the pea". I have a hunch you're still stinging from that one, and putting me down just doesn't soothe the pain.
You pretend it is a game to make fun of what I said, while you ignore the issues and fail to deal with the evidence.
You have recourse to lists of logical fallacies. Rather than employ them to detect falsehood and double-check arguments, you use them as a recipe list. Why should I not make fun of the results?
Take the latest little gem "I openly defy you to find even one example of me trying to make anything unclear" - which is not what I said. Thus you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I said. Trying to be unclear and misrepresenting things are different.
You said I was playing "hide the pea". This is clearly and blatantly an attempt at role reversal, and everyone knows it.
That you do misunderstand or misrepresent things IS clear from many of your posts.
Take the issue of half-lives and your "quarter"lives, an issue where you clearly did not understand the mathematics and tried to make out that exponential curves were wrong. It was mathematically proven that you were false, but you have yet to acknowledge that fact (lots of little smilies as you danced around the issue not withstanding).
What? Backtracking up the same curve demonstrates that it matches an independently calculated curve? NOT! Or didn't you think I figured that out? (Due to believing your own anti-CTD hype, no doubt.) Of course I did; I just don't have time/resources to spend creating graphs, registering on a filesharing site, and all that; so I haven't demonstrated it. Big deal. I don't think anybody expects it of me, but you can continue making demands if you want.
You & Linear's claim is just like claiming interest compounded annually = interest compounded weekly merely because you can take the annual rate and backtrack it to any given week and produce
a result. The results will not be
the same, and anyone who really cares can find out for themselves. This isn't hard at all.
As for the rest of your antihistory, I find it satisfying that you are unable to produce any
actual examples, and have chosen to resort to composing more fiction.
Really? My imagined "failure" is all you need to prove you're right? You overestimate my importance, and make other serious errors which do not help your credibility.
No, it is all that is needed to show that
you are
wrong.
No it ain't. Even if it were true, it wouldn't suffice.
Say for example I claim the night is darker than the day, and you claim the day is darker than the night. Say I'm 3 years old and don't know why. Do you really think this makes me wrong, and you right? Get real!
If you were right you would be able to provide evidence that you were right, as you should be familiar with the evidence that lead to your claim. That is what substantiation means, btw, something you could do a whole lot more of if you wanted your arguments to have more credibility.
I might or might not be able to demonstrate a given thing. You might or might not acknowledge it if I did.
I dare say I've contributed my share of evidence. I've also looked at evidence presented by evolutionists and found discrepancies. But it never seems to matter. They just goggle up & pretend it never happened, or trot over to talkdeceptions for some poorly thought-out lies that cannot withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.
Now, as ever, I'll not have the pace and extent of my participation dictated to me by members of the forum.
I can say 'dog' means the same thing as 'cat' because they both refer to mammals with 4 legs, but it won't make it so. I can then be silly and demand that you demonstrate either a cat or a dog doesn't have 4 legs, but it won't make me correct. If you won't spare me further attempts to revive discussion of your nonsensical quest, expect to be ignored or mocked.
A rather facile example based on the logical
fallacy of hasty generalization, and an empty threat based on the logical
fallacy of consequences: empty, when your behavior has been consistently to mock what you don't understand anyway.
Did that one really go over your head? Or do you merely pretend it did? Can you not see that dog and cat are symbolic of different versions of evolutionism?
I suspect you can, but you have no meaningful response. This could be wrong, and I feel like I should hope it is. The more of evosickness one sees, the uglier it gets.
All your example of actually demonstrating that both dogs and cats have four legs shows is that it is possible to find evidence for any claim, but that the real issue is dealing with all the evidence, including the evidence that falsifies a claim.
Of course you can - you frequently do - say anything you like, but the issue is making your case by substantiation and dealing with all the evidence, including the evidence that contradicts your claim. For instance, I would point out that a dog is not a cat because (a) it does not have retractable claws, (b) does not have little "hooks" on its tongue, (c) has four toes instead of five, (d) has different dental patterns ... just for starters.
Now take the same approach to all the different little definitions of 'evolution' floating around out there, and...
Aw, why do I bother?
Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that I misunderstand evolutionism. It may not sound humble, but I think by now it's pretty evident who has the better understanding of this false religion. I am firmly convinced that one cannot become too familiar with it and believe in it without making a long-term commitment to abandon truth.
And yet this very statement shows that you misunderstand evolution. The fact is that evolution is observed to occur every day of every year, that evolution occurs in all living species, and that to deny that this is so is to deny the truth.
I never said I didn't understand the retreat to the newer definitions, did I? Nor did I say (or demonstrate) that I didn't understand the bait & switch tactic of which you're so fond. Does this irritate you? Do you really expect me to buy into normal everyday life (which has always been observed) = evolution = everything came from some single-celled lifeform that lived x billion years ago? Or is that just the limit of your sorry little game?
Part of that truth is also that evolution is not a religion by any definition,
Which is why I use the term 'evolutionism' to distinguish the religion from the god. I suppose evolution-worship might be an alternative, but it takes longer to type, and does not appeal to me.
and that attempts to portray it as such are just more evidence of misrepresentation. It is a science, a fact that is substantiated by the massive numbers of people involved in doing science within the field of evolutionary biology.
'Evolution' is a science? I don't think so. Even most evolutionists claim it is a "theory" or "fact".
I see no "whining" about evolution being treated with "respect" ...
Well, it's happened more than once. Were I to link to examples, it would be rude, and some would think I was just picking on one or two parties, now wouldn't they?
But we have more cases than one can shake a stick at of evolutionism's intolerance. Proponents of ideas that can withstand questioning don't have to ban those who question them. They don't have to demand that lies be illegally retained in textbooks, either.
If you want to disrespect and deny the truth, that is your problem, and your continued misrepresentation of evolution is just more evidence that you misunderstand and misrepresent it.
I represent 'evolutionism' as that which evolutionists demand that students be indroctrinated with.
All of it. Lock, stock, and barrel. The only misrepresentation is done by those who only want to defend select pieces of their religious propaganda, and don't have the guts to openly confess their agenda. (And the peons who follow them, naturally.)
Curiously, science in general, and evolution in particular, is not in the business of "respecting" people or ideas. It is in the business of testing concepts against the objective evidence of reality and discarding any and all falsified concepts without any respect for who had the idea or what it was.
Nonsense. "Evolution" cannot be in the business of rejecting itself, but if it were about rejecting falsified concepts this is just what it'd do.
Nor does truth "respect" falsehood. If your concepts are false there is no reason to "respect" them.
This assumes one is not a devotee of the anything-but-the truth philosophy. Do you not care for your flock?
Pretty much everyone knows things can be faked. So there's no need to pretend otherwise.
So you agree that all the videos that Russ provides are essentially useless information, because they are easily made with faked, false, forged, or fictitious information.
No. Your words will not fit in my mouth, and you really shouldn't try. Or maybe you should put more effort into it. Would it kill you to take a little pride in your work?
All sources are potentially bogus, at least in theory. But this does not mean all sources are actually bogus, does it? If this were so, nobody could ever learn anything, and that includes your dearly cherished evolutionism.
Daring move, bringing up "faked, false, forged, or fictitious information." Very risky. And a risk you may regret taking. I have need of only one word in response:
history.Substantiation of the validity of concepts would involve going to the original sources, sources where the content is reviewed in peer reviewed journals, or by repeating the study in question, looking at the original evidence.
Now we disagree. I think people have sense enough to figure out how to verify things, and your methods differ from mine.
Any what? Do you seriously intend to fault me for failing to provide verification for every claim made in every video Russ has ever posted? Please pursue this further. You haven't been funny enough to suit me lately.
No, what I expect you to do is to substantiate your own statements, and in this case your statement that "The factual content in many of the videos Russ has posted can be verified to a high degree of confidence without too much trouble."
You can go to the NASA website and view the pics of the planets & moons yourself. That'd be a start. Or if that's not enough, you could get a telescope and see some of it for yourself. What's hard about that? What's hard to figure out? Nothing, that's what. You're just being argumentative, and hoping I'll be fool enough to waste a few hundred hours on a vain project.
So let me explain something. I'll spend time on anyone interested in how science relates to origins. I'll go out of my way to make extra time for the activity. But this ends the instant they indicate they're not interested in learning the truth. From that point on, I'll discuss things as much or as little as I want.
Note that you even claimed that it could be done without too much trouble. Time to belly up?
You act like it's a big deal to work a search engine. I'm sure most folks can manage on their own. If any can't, they're welcome to PM me, okay? No need to post such a potentially embarrassing question.
It would be a waste of time to even begin.
Cop-out. This from the person who claims to be the person who claims his "role" is to "reveal" the truth instead of hiding from it.
People need to verify things for themselves, or ask someone they trust. You & etc. don't trust me, my sources, or even your own sources.
Strangely I don't expect anyone to trust sources, either, but I note that you need to actually
provide sources so that they can be evaluated for validity.
You just got done saying I had agreed that no sources were valid. What's to evaluate?
The issue also should not be affected by who posts the source, rather it should be about what the source says.
I've seen it go both ways. Some evidence ignored because of who posts it, and some is ignored because it is contrary to evodoctrines.
For instance, anyone who "trusts" your claim that 'decay rates changed' should be wary without any form of substantiation that rates can change.
Speaking of trust, I don't trust your memory. Myself, I don't recall making the claim.
They should also be skeptical of this as a creationist claim, as it is not supported by any biblical reference (to my knowledge the bible does not mention radioactivity, uranium or decay rates anywhere). This amounts to a made up fantasy based on wishful thinking rather than any evidence, logic or reason.
How
do you come up with this stuff! Have you any single example of anyone arguing that the decay rates have changed based upon scripture, or is this just another addition to the Straw Legion? Have you any plans to attack this straw man, or will he roam around at large?
There are hypotheses about changing decay rates, but they're investigated as science - not doctrine.
Your argument thus far is an odd one. Would you claim nothing can happen that isn't documented in the bible, or something along those lines? What you've written concludes "This amounts to a made up fantasy based on wishful thinking rather than any evidence, logic or reason," based upon not finding these things in scripture. My shoes aren't mentioned either, but I wear them almost every day.
That said, I think we all know whose beliefs are based upon fantasy. Some day I may actually count the number of times Darwin says "imagine" or "imagination" in his book on the preservation of favoured races.
Again, a logical
fallacy of appeal to authority), which in this instance ignores all the factual basis for his theory of descent with modification.
Wrong twice. The book is not an authority on Darwin; it is what Darwin himself wrote.
Or did you mean that appealing to Darwin is a fallacy? I hope you read your own link before providing it, but I'm not altogether confident.
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
1. the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
2. experts in the field disagree on this issue.
3. the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.
I think Darwin's an authority on Darwinism, one of the major sects. There was (and is) little disagreement that events and lifeforms and a whole lot of other things must be imagined. I have not heard that Darwin was drunk, and sadly it does not appear he was joking either. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. Wouldn't help matters much, but it sure would be funny.
The fact that Darwin imagines various scenarios is part of the process of developing tests for theories.
The book is predominantly about imagined things. Searching for "imagin" within the text yields so many hits even I was surprised the first time I tried it. Next to little words like 'it', 'the' and 'a', this has to be the most common term in the book. It's everywhere!
The fact remains, however, that Darwin could imagine thousands of things and the science of evolution would be totally unaffected: we know that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - occurs, and we know that speciation - the division of populations into non-interbreeding daughter populations - occurs, so we know that evolution is a fact that can be observed in every day life.
We know that bogus definitions are easy to come by; we know that those who habitually employ them are not attempting to communicate clearly; we know that real scientists tend to employ specific terms with well-established definitions in order to avoid even the potential for confusion (but they're not trying to hide things and dupe people).
These facts are not affected by Darwin's use of the word "imagination" no matter how you try to hide the pea,
It isn't hiding anything to point out that the book is about imagination, and the religion depends upon imaginary things to this day. But denying the imaginary nature of the myth, that'd be another story.
* For purposes of full disclosure,
some of the hits on "imagin" are not about just conjuring things up. Some are part of legitimate phrasing, in situations which more modern authors would tend to use phrases like "hypothetically speaking". But these are still using imagination, and they're not nearly all of the hits, either.
And the second wrong is that I have ignored no facts. Darwin attempted to explain quite a few facts. Then they turn right around and give us these same facts any time we ask for evidence. I have a whole thread about this practice, so I don't think you'll persuade anyone I've ignored them. If you ask nicely, I can think of one who'll happily pretend to be persuaded, but that doesn't count.
This is what the theory of evolution predicts we should find in the fossil record: intermediate forms at intermediated ages in the lineages.
So go find them and be a hero.
I have to wonder if you've ever considered just how many "transitionals" there are supposed to be. Do you think some dino's egg hatched out even the most primitive bird? Do you think one of that tic-tac fish's offspring just up & was a salamander? If so, you might want to look again, 'cause that ain't what they say.
Again, this betrays a false understanding of evolution and what evolution proposes for the diversity of life. This is a standard creationist straw man misrepresentation, one that is easily dispelled by any real fact checking with evolutionary biologists, studies, books, etc etc etc.
Creationists keep trying to compress generations of accumulated evolution into single generation events, and this just is not the way evolution occurs.
I didn't say it was. I clearly said "that ain't what they say". Can you not read?
But unless this is the way it works, you're missing 99.99999% of the "transitionals", as your own pics clearly demonstrate.
And one needs to keep in mind how much even of those pictures is pure imagination as well.
In addition, evolution predicts that IF the theory is true, that THEN intermediate forms will be found between any two closely related species separated by time: that every hereditary lineage that is known will be filled in by more intermediates. This is what they did with
So why has nobody found anything "transitioning" into a bat? You state that these must be found "IF the theory is true". Where are they?
You present your great prizes as if they mean something, but they've only ever ginned up "transitionals" for very few species, and these aren't without controversy. By your own words, the prediction applies to
all lifeforms.
Maybe when I have time I'll post a small list of ancestorless creatures; but anyone playing at home can research this easily. Just think of a critter. Is it there a famous evolutionary series related to it? If not, you probably won't find any "ancestry" for it. And this is the case with almost anything you care to try!
For my purposes, I'm content with the bat. You see, bats make up 20 to 25 per cent of all mammalian species. And there are a lot of them. They live in caves, where they could easily be trapped & fossilized. There is no excuse for a lack of batcestor fossils.
Evolutionists themselves have said that transitional fossils are severely lacking. Are creationists not allowed to agree with them on this issue? Please clarify: when are creationists required to disagree?
Creationists are not allowed to cherry pick some comments about some transitions and then ignore ones about transitions in the fossil record, particularly when made by the same evolutionist, as that is not confronting
all the evidence.
How come you present a line-up of skulls as if one led to the other, when your own experts say it ain't so? How is this "confronting
all the evidence"? How is this not cherry-picking on a grand scale? (For almost every single one of those skulls has plenty of reasons to be excluded, even by evostandards.)
Gould for one, specifically states that there are transitional forms, for example, but you wouldn't know that from reading creationist sites that quote his evidence for "Punctuated Equilibrium" speciations as if it was a universal condition.
So he decided it was politically expedient to change his position? How does this alter his original position? Which statement is more likely to reflect his actual opinion?
And I begin to wonder if evopushers even know what 'out-of-context' means? Not all quotes are out-of-context. ONLY quotes that have their meaning(s) shaded or by surrounding context can even be candidates. ONLY when the snipped portion gives a different impression than the full quote is this a fallacy (and a deception).
Such as creationist quote-mining of Gould comments on transitionals. The evidence is that evolutionists understand this much better than creationists, due to the number of posts where evolutionists debunk the quote-mining of creationists.
So making false accusations is a virtue? I haven't seen any true accusations of this type, but I freely confess I quit verifying after a few turned out to be lies. Really, it's a bit much to falsely accuse someone of deceit a dozen times, and then expect the 13th accusation to be taken seriously.
But if one checks the context, it is more often than not the case that the false accusation is merely a ploy to divert the discussion. It is hard to respect those who practice these things on a regular basis.
An example of this is
The Quote-Mine Project, dedicated to showing the false impression of creationists sites by such misrepresentations.
Interesting. Without even following the link, I can confidently predict at least 7 of the first 10 accusations will be false. I do not rule out the possibility that they've actually found one or two cases. Although it is remote, we must keep in mind that people are fallible, and there are moles that one may not be able to handily expose.
For your part, I wonder if you've bothered to read their junk. I confess I have seen it it the past, so my guess isn't totally blind. But as you seem to have overlooked the contents of your own links a time or two, and you've been stressing the importance of verifying sources... and we know talkdeceptions' agenda, and many of us know about their credibility issues all too well... It's just a brazen move providing such a link after what you've said about Russ' video links. Without work, I can't think of a better way to describe this act than 'flaunting dishonesty'. Can you suggest one?
I don't see any comparable project launched by creationists to (a) clean up their side and (b) show that evolutionists misquote/misrepresent creationists.
Is there a need for one? I really don't see how creationists would profit by falsely accusing each other. As for debunking evolies, I'm sure they can crank 'em out faster than anyone can debunk, so why enter such a race?
Quoting a double-talker or liar whose words did mean exactly what they appear to mean is not 'out-of-context' just because the speaker/author was disingenuous. If you were to apply the same bogus standard, you have no standing to call any politician on his lies because you knew he didn't mean what he said to begin with.
Are you now claiming that all evolutionary scientists that have been misquoted in general, and Gould in particular, are double-talking liars?
Does it look like I'm claiming that? I made no claim about all evolutionist scientists, but I have called Gould a double-talker in the past. This is my honest opinion. Do you have a problem with it?
If not then this little digression is just another CTD attempt to divert the argument from the issue of creationists providing misrepresentative quotes in a manner to imply and insinuate that evolution is wrong. It's just another attempt to evade the issue that the creationist quote-mining of Gould in the video is a falsehood.
Clarifying isn't diverting. Leave it to you to claim otherwise.
I didn't see any standard proposed by you which would exempt evolutionist liars from being quoted, just because one knows they're not telling the truth. So I hope we won't encounter such complaints in the future.
Curiously Hegel's philosophy has nothing to do with the reality that genetics shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and that populations of non-interbreeding species are related by common ancestors. Of course it is also your claim that they are antithetical, not Hegel, and reality is not kind to assertions based on fantasy either.
It is the directly implied claim of the founders of the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis". It is also a readily apparent fact, and you yourself have lent confirmation to this by your continued attempts to confuse people about genetics. Your actions aren't consistent with those of a person who is ignorant of the fact, so I proceed on the conclusion that you are very familiar therewith.
My understanding is based upon actions. Evolutionism is defined by the actions of evolutionists. If it does not match their words, how does that diminish my understanding? Please present a standard which can apply equally well to politicians and used car salesmen, as well as evopushers.
Just as your words and actions demonstrate your antipathy for reality and for hiding from truth rather than revealing things, your lack of substantiations for your many claims demonstrate that you are not interested in finding the truth but in hiding it.
If that's anyone's honest opinion of my actions, so be it. But I'm not the least bit concerned that this is the case.
You equate evolutionists with car salesmen, double-talking liars, and drug pushers in what amounts to a desperate attempt to deny, disparage and denigrate reality.
I do not equate evolutionists with any such persons; but I'll make an exception for individuals who require it, like yourself.
Denigrate reality? LOL! I almost missed that. Please segregate in the future the funny stuff from the false accusations.
Curiously this is just another way of your demonstrating that you don't understand evolution, because you don't base your understanding on the scientific facts. It appears from what you have said here that you prefer to base your opinion on your trust of people, and while this may be how faith works, it is not how science works. In science truth is independent of people.
My words won't twist there. I derive my understanding of science from facts; evolutionism isn't science. Since those who push it frequently are found acting contrary to their words, I evaluate their intentions by their actions. This is the most valid method available.
Now they say they have no need of abiogenesis and big bangs; but their actions are not consistent with these statements. By every definition offered by evolutionists on this forum for their own beliefs, they have no need whatsoever of abiogenesis. But propose that this debunked concept be omitted from a textbook, or not taught as fact, and see what happens!
Would you have me take everyone at their word, and overlook deeds?
Please tell me how I can look at a rock for billions of years. What's the secret? Does it involve imagination?
By studying geology.
More funny. Thank you.
What kind of silly tactic is this? Just up and say "you don't get to 'cherry-pick'" when I wasn't cherry picking anything at all!
Am I supposed to be impressed? What kind of impression would you make with this?
You have only strengthened the case in favour of my original evaluation.
Your "evaluation" is irrelevant. The fact remains that you need to look at all the evidence, and that anything else is "cherry-picking".[/quote]I'm still unimpressed. When I cherry-pick, you're welcome to call me on it. When I don't, these accusations are unwelcome. Well, in a sense. But I'll gladly put up with them for the sake of the overall good.
Actually the existence of the planets in the forms our best evidence demonstrates them to have - each and every individual one, as the video makes clear, contradicts the doctrine of evolution. There isn't a single planet that complies.
Yes, the power of the
post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy to explain that things are like they are because they are like they are. Impressive.
That's not what I said. You're a regular one-man scarecrow factory.
What? Do you think my sentence is too long for folks to understand? Certainly you wouldn't have included it in full if you thought otherwise. Or (surely not
) is it too complex for you? I can break it down if needed.
Your denial is interesting, but ultimately pointless. The fact remains that you and Russ do not understand evolution, do not use the definitions as used in the field of evolutionary biology, {snip}
Hold on a minute! You yourself have published many a definition, and not all of them (I'd bet not half) are "used in the field of evolutionary biology". You have also complained that they're not sufficient.
Do you now argue that because we don't use stupid trick definitions you yourself find deficient, we cannot understand evolutionism?
Supported? You speak like a politician. I never said the claim was true. I declined to say it was untrue. There are new genetic mechanisms being discovered all the time, and there are some pretty amazing ones that have been known for quite a while, but are downplayed and denied because of the impact they'd have on a certain religious system.
Yes, you argued that there were genetic mechanisms that would make it possible.
Even the simple difference between 'would' and 'could', even this you will try to exploit in order to distort the situation.
Yes, you suggested a mechanism for how it would work. That is support. Nor did you state your disagreement then (only after he dissembled?).
Nope. Don't equivocate on "support". We all know what you meant. I made my position clear. This is just sickening. Okay, it's funny too.
Actually this is double funny. Because your post is addressed (in the way of the forum) to me, your hope of success here is contingent on
me forgetting what happened! What
are you thinking!!!
And when I did mention the potential mechanisms, why was it said that I did not? Got some equivocation for that too?
Also, I never have stated my disagreement. Why should I? I don't know that such things happen, but I don't rule them out until I see evidence. To my knowledge, it does not happen, but that doesn't mean it cannot happen.
[quote]You don't even know how to be right when you have the chance. And that actually is kinda funny, so thanks for reminding me.
Funny that this still does not show that you understand evolution.
Who said it did?
Again, you just think you can change subjects willy-nilly, and everyone must stupidly comply with your wishes and become distracted. This demonstrates that you have ignored the advice I just got done giving you.
So I guess there's no point in coaching you on how to be right, on the rare chance that you'll ever have another opportunity. If you do encounter another chance, feel free to squander it away just like the last one.
