Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Re: The Incorrigible Dr Berlinski: A Rebellious Intelelctual Defies Darw

Expand Messages
  • wilson_brooks2003
    From Will Brooks Tuesday 17 th September 10.28 AM GMT in response to David Williams David Williams: Dr. Berlinski was using an argument from ignorance, Will:
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

       

      From Will Brooks Tuesday 17th September 10.28 AM GMT

      in response to David Williams

       

      David Williams: Dr. Berlinski was using an argument from
      ignorance,

      Will: Dr Berlinski has shown that Darwinism is unscientific. That you think he is using an argument from ignorance demonstrates that your critical thinking faculties are seriously impaired probably due to your constant repetitive anti creation mantra.

      Furthermore, even if a person does present an argument that exposes the ignorance of his opponent if you imagine that sticking a label on it somehow negates the validity of the argument you are deluding yourself.

       

      In this specific matter of Darwinism or Creation you are not ignorant. You have been presented with numerous lines of evidence exposing Darwinism as unscientific. And you have been presented with credible arguments for a Highly Intelligent Creative Mind that is superior by magnitudes to that which has been created.

       

      That you choose to believe unscientific Darwinism instead of the Creator, whom you profess belief in and yet talk about Him irreverently, is a decision that you have made not from ignorance and therefore you are Without Excuse.

       

      I will now say, based on the evidence of what you have had to say over the last few months, that you are posing as a theistic evolutionist who claims to believe in Jesus Christ and that you are in fact quite clearly a dyed in the wool Darwinist.

       

      David Williams: Dr. Noble was saying that the theory of
      evolution needs to be updated to incorporate new information. .

      Will: Dr. Noble clearly demonstrated that Darwinian evolution is unscientific. Is it possible that you have seen a shaft of light that exposes Darwinism? The new information he presented shows that a fully formed organism is the starting point.

       

      David Williams: I would? It looks a lot like a begging
      the question fallacy was used.

      Will: Another of your labels that does nothing to negate my argument about Information being the product of a Highly Intelligent Creative Mind.

       

      In your case however your mind is blinded by unscientific Darwinism which affects your critical thinking skills. But this is your deliberate choice and you are therefore still Without Excuse.

      David Williams: There is no credible scientific proof for God.

      David Williams: I;ll say it again. Creationist twaddle is not
      credible scientific evidence.

      David Williams: I have never read any credible scientific
      evidence in any of his posts.

      Will: You have read credible scientific presented by Kamran and others in this forum but you deliberately choose not to give any consideration to the evidence presented and thrust it aside. You are Without Excuse and you have no defence.

       

      David Williams: My reality is much more scientific than your is.
      Your reality is religious. I have no use for your religious
      reality. If you do not like how I think, that is too bad.

      Will: It was my realisation after researching Darwinian evolution that the theory is unscientific that led me to evaluating the scientific evidence for a Creator. I did so with the mindset that I will follow the evidence wherever it leads but will do so very critically looking for flaws because in my heart I was hoping to convince myself that somehow Darwinism was the reality. However, I was also a genuine seeker of truth because the notion that living a lie and to not live in the world of reality was, to me, repulsive.

       





      --- In originstalk@yahoogroups.com, <mephili@...> wrote:

      • will brooks
        Message 1 of 1 , Today at 02:24 AM
        From Will Brooks Monday 16th September 7.45 AM GMT
        in response to David Williams
         
        David Williams: Why don;t you give credible scientific evidence
        that your favorite sky daddy made whales? If you can;t, then why
        do you keep faith in creationism, which has no credible
        scientific evidence to back it up?


        Will: if you had read and understood what Dr Berlinski was saying

      • David Williams:  Dr. Berlinski was using an argument from ignorance,

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


      From above:


      Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.



      http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/land-to-sea-inner-ear-transitions-in.html


      Land to Sea: Inner Ear Transitions in Whales


      From above:


      "One particularly baffling fossil was the back part of a 50-million-year-old skull. It was about the size of a coyote's and had a high ridge running like a mohawk over the top of its head, where muscles could attach and give the mammal a powerful bite. When Gingerich looked underneath the skull, he saw ear bones. They were two shells shaped like a pair of grapes and were anchored to the skull by bones in the shape of an S. For a paleontologist like Gingrich, these ear bones were a shock. Only the ear bones of whales have such a structure; no other vertebrate possesses them."
      - Carl Zimmer


      David Williams:  All whales have a distinctive inner ear bone.  This distinctive inner ear bone has been found in fossils of land dwelling animals, which some call walking whales.  The distinctive inner ear bone is evidence of  common descent.  It took millions of years to evolve from land animals to fully aquatic ones, plenty of time for all the needed changes to evolve.

      •  and if you watched the youtube video lecture by Professor Denis Noble and used the critical analytical thinking skills that are attributes of someone with a degree in chemical engineering which you claim to have you would have understood that Berlinski and Noble have proven Darwinian evolution to be unscientific.
         
      •  David Williams:  Dr. Noble was saying that the theory of evolution needs to be updated to incorporate new information.. 

      • If you had read and applied those aforementioned skills to my very recent posts which are extracts from Without Excuse by Information Scientist Professor Werner Gitt you would understand that Information is the product of a Highly Intelligent Creative Mind that is superior by magnitudes to that which has been created.
         
      • David Williams:  I would?  It looks a lot like  a begging the question fallacy was used.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


      From above:


      Begging the question (Latin: petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion; in other words, basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself.[1


      David Williams:  There is no credible scientific proof for God.

      •  
      • If you had read and understood the posts by Charles and Jim about DNA and other components necessary for life you would understand that DNA proscribes for one kind evolving into another kind.

      •  
        David Williams:  I;ll say it again.  Creationist twaddle is not credible scientific evidence.

      • If you had read and understood the numerous posts by Kamran in which he talks about DNA and nano tech biological systems that are the equivalent of CAD CAM processes in a high tech factory you would have understood that the Creator brought into existence fully formed creatures according to their kind as for example the whale.

      • David Williams:  I have never read any credible scientific evidence in any of his posts.
      •  
        It is most sad that constantly repeating your parrot like mantra: creationist twaddle creationist twaddle creationist twaddle, your sole contribution in this forum, has apparently seriously impaired your ability to think critically and that you are detached from reality.


      David Williams:  My reality is much more scientific than your is. Your reality is  religious.  I have no use for your religious reality. If you do not like how I think, that is too bad.




      --- In originstalk@yahoogroups.com, <wilson_brooks2003@...> wrote:

      From Will Brooks Monday 16th September 7.45 AM GMT
      in response to David Williams
       
      David Williams: Why don;t you give credible scientific evidence
      that your favorite sky daddy made whales? If you can;t, then why
      do you keep faith in creationism, which has no credible
      scientific evidence to back it up?


      Will: if you had read and understood what Dr Berlinski was saying and if you watched the youtube video lecture by Professor Denis Noble and used the critical analytical thinking skills that are attributes of someone with a degree in chemical engineering which you claim to have you would have understood that Berlinski and Noble have proven Darwinian evolution to be unscientific.
       
      If you had read and applied those aforementioned skills to my very recent posts which are extracts from Without Excuse by Information Scientist Professor Werner Gitt you would understand that Information is the product of a Highly Intelligent Creative Mind that is superior by magnitudes to that which has been created.
       
      If you had read and understood the posts by Charles and Jim about DNA and other components necessary for life you would understand that DNA proscribes for one kind evolving into another kind.
       
      If you had read and understood the numerous posts by Kamran in which he talks about DNA and nano tech biological systems that are the equivalent of CAD CAM processes in a high tech factory you would have understood that the Creator brought into existence fully formed creatures according to their kind as for example the whale.
       
      It is most sad that constantly repeating your parrot like mantra: creationist twaddle creationist twaddle creationist twaddle, your sole contribution in this forum, has apparently seriously impaired your ability to think critically and that you are detached from reality.
    • David Williams
      Will: You have read credible scientific presented by Kamran and others in this forum but you deliberately choose not to give any consideration to the evidence
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 17, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Will: You have read credible scientific presented by Kamran and others in this forum but you deliberately choose not to give any consideration to the evidence presented and thrust it aside. You are Without Excuse and you have no defence.Will: You have read credible scientific presented by Kamran and others in this forum but you deliberately choose not to give any consideration to the evidence presented and thrust it aside. You are Without Excuse and you have no defence.

        David Williams:  I have seen these. creationist arguments used for decades. They were twaddle decades ago and still are. It is obvious to anyone with a rational scientific education that you do not know what credible scientific  evidence for biology is. 

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


        Dunning–Kruger effect

        From above:

        The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
        Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"

        The phenomenon was first tested in a series of experiments performed by Dunning and Kruger.[2][3] Dunning and Kruger noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis.
        Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
        1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
        2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
        3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
        4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.



        On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:52 AM, "wilson_brooks2003@..." <wilson_brooks2003@...> wrote:
         
         
        From Will Brooks Tuesday 17th September 10.28 AM GMT
        in response to David Williams
         
        David Williams: Dr. Berlinski was using an argument from
        ignorance,

        Will: Dr Berlinski has shown that Darwinism is unscientific. That you think he is using an argument from ignorance demonstrates that your critical thinking faculties are seriously impaired probably due to your constant repetitive anti creation mantra.

        Furthermore, even if a person does present an argument that exposes the ignorance of his opponent if you imagine that sticking a label on it somehow negates the validity of the argument you are deluding yourself.
         
        In this specific matter of Darwinism or Creation you are not ignorant. You have been presented with numerous lines of evidence exposing Darwinism as unscientific. And you have been presented with credible arguments for a Highly Intelligent Creative Mind that is superior by magnitudes to that which has been created.
         
        That you choose to believe unscientific Darwinism instead of the Creator, whom you profess belief in and yet talk about Him irreverently, is a decision that you have made not from ignorance and therefore you are Without Excuse.
         
        I will now say, based on the evidence of what you have had to say over the last few months, that you are posing as a theistic evolutionist who claims to believe in Jesus Christ and that you are in fact quite clearly a dyed in the wool Darwinist.
         
        David Williams: Dr. Noble was saying that the theory of
        evolution needs to be updated to incorporate new information. .

        Will: Dr. Noble clearly demonstrated that Darwinian evolution is unscientific. Is it possible that you have seen a shaft of light that exposes Darwinism? The new information he presented shows that a fully formed organism is the starting point.
         
        David Williams: I would? It looks a lot like a begging
        the question fallacy was used.

        Will: Another of your labels that does nothing to negate my argument about Information being the product of a Highly Intelligent Creative Mind.
         
        In your case however your mind is blinded by unscientific Darwinism which affects your critical thinking skills. But this is your deliberate choice and you are therefore still Without Excuse.

        David Williams: There is no credible scientific proof for God.

        David Williams: I;ll say it again. Creationist twaddle is not
        credible scientific evidence.

        David Williams: I have never read any credible scientific
        evidence in any of his posts.

        Will: You have read credible scientific presented by Kamran and others in this forum but you deliberately choose not to give any consideration to the evidence presented and thrust it aside. You are Without Excuse and you have no defence.
         
        David Williams: My reality is much more scientific than your is.
        Your reality is religious. I have no use for your religious
        reality. If you do not like how I think, that is too bad.

        Will: It was my realisation after researching Darwinian evolution that the theory is unscientific that led me to evaluating the scientific evidence for a Creator. I did so with the mindset that I will follow the evidence wherever it leads but will do so very critically looking for flaws because in my heart I was hoping to convince myself that somehow Darwinism was the reality. However, I was also a genuine seeker of truth because the notion that living a lie and to not live in the world of reality was, to me, repulsive.
         




        --- In originstalk@yahoogroups.com, <mephili@...> wrote:

        • will brooks
          Message 1 of 1 , Today at 02:24 AM
          From Will Brooks Monday 16th September 7.45 AM GMT
          in response to David Williams
           
          David Williams: Why don;t you give credible scientific evidence
          that your favorite sky daddy made whales? If you can;t, then why
          do you keep faith in creationism, which has no credible
          scientific evidence to back it up?


          Will: if you had read and understood what Dr Berlinski was saying

        • David Williams:  Dr. Berlinski was using an argument from ignorance,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

        From above:

        Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.


        http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/land-to-sea-inner-ear-transitions-in.html

        Land to Sea: Inner Ear Transitions in Whales


        From above:

        "One particularly baffling fossil was the back part of a 50-million-year-old skull. It was about the size of a coyote's and had a high ridge running like a mohawk over the top of its head, where muscles could attach and give the mammal a powerful bite. When Gingerich looked underneath the skull, he saw ear bones. They were two shells shaped like a pair of grapes and were anchored to the skull by bones in the shape of an S. For a paleontologist like Gingrich, these ear bones were a shock. Only the ear bones of whales have such a structure; no other vertebrate possesses them."
        - Carl Zimmer

        David Williams:  All whales have a distinctive inner ear bone.  This distinctive inner ear bone has been found in fossils of land dwelling animals, which some call walking whales.  The distinctive inner ear bone is evidence of  common descent.  It took millions of years to evolve from land animals to fully aquatic ones, plenty of time for all the needed changes to evolve.
        •  and if you watched the youtube video lecture by Professor Denis Noble and used the critical analytical thinking skills that are attributes of someone with a degree in chemical engineering which you claim to have you would have understood that Berlinski and Noble have proven Darwinian evolution to be unscientific.
           
        •  David Williams:  Dr. Noble was saying that the theory of evolution needs to be updated to incorporate new information.. 

        • If you had read and applied those aforementioned skills to my very recent posts which are extracts from Without Excuse by Information Scientist Professor Werner Gitt you would understand that Information is the product of a Highly Intelligent Creative Mind that is superior by magnitudes to that which has been created.
           
        • David Williams:  I would?  It looks a lot like  a begging the question fallacy was used.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

        From above:

        Begging the question (Latin: petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion; in other words, basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself.[1

        David Williams:  There is no credible scientific proof for God.
        •  
        • If you had read and understood the posts by Charles and Jim about DNA and other components necessary for life you would understand that DNA proscribes for one kind evolving into another kind.

        •  
          David Williams:  I;ll say it again.  Creationist twaddle is not credible scientific evidence.

        • If you had read and understood the numerous posts by Kamran in which he talks about DNA and nano tech biological systems that are the equivalent of CAD CAM processes in a high tech factory you would have understood that the Creator brought into existence fully formed creatures according to their kind as for example the whale.

        • David Williams:  I have never read any credible scientific evidence in any of his posts.
        •  
          It is most sad that constantly repeating your parrot like mantra: creationist twaddle creationist twaddle creationist twaddle, your sole contribution in this forum, has apparently seriously impaired your ability to think critically and that you are detached from reality.

        David Williams:  My reality is much more scientific than your is. Your reality is  religious.  I have no use for your religious reality. If you do not like how I think, that is too bad.



        --- In originstalk@yahoogroups.com, <wilson_brooks2003@...> wrote:

        From Will Brooks Monday 16th September 7.45 AM GMT
        in response to David Williams
         
        David Williams: Why don;t you give credible scientific evidence
        that your favorite sky daddy made whales? If you can;t, then why
        do you keep faith in creationism, which has no credible
        scientific evidence to back it up?


        Will: if you had read and understood what Dr Berlinski was saying and if you watched the youtube video lecture by Professor Denis Noble and used the critical analytical thinking skills that are attributes of someone with a degree in chemical engineering which you claim to have you would have understood that Berlinski and Noble have proven Darwinian evolution to be unscientific.
         
        If you had read and applied those aforementioned skills to my very recent posts which are extracts from Without Excuse by Information Scientist Professor Werner Gitt you would understand that Information is the product of a Highly Intelligent Creative Mind that is superior by magnitudes to that which has been created.
         
        If you had read and understood the posts by Charles and Jim about DNA and other components necessary for life you would understand that DNA proscribes for one kind evolving into another kind.
         
        If you had read and understood the numerous posts by Kamran in which he talks about DNA and nano tech biological systems that are the equivalent of CAD CAM processes in a high tech factory you would have understood that the Creator brought into existence fully formed creatures according to their kind as for example the whale.
         
        It is most sad that constantly repeating your parrot like mantra: creationist twaddle creationist twaddle creationist twaddle, your sole contribution in this forum, has apparently seriously impaired your ability to think critically and that you are detached from reality.


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.