Friday, May 15, 2009

An Askew Veiw

I understand the quoting sources such as wikipedia or comments would not be acceptable in "formal" debate. But I am common and un-properly educated in the schools of personal observation, research , observation and gleaning tidbits of understanding from the understandings i surround myself with.

And this blog is my place to shadow box where it is fine to debate and discuss the wiki's which are a fair representation of the collections of mind's titbit's. IE. I argue with what is "common Knowledge" As the typical debates tend to baffle the casual observer with knowledge they are years and many dollars removed from.

I have been reading " "

When you get to the early life section of this article the begins presenting "evidence" in terms of "Suggest" "some research" and what i vaguely relate to guess work. Let's look at it.

""" Evidence of the early appearance of life comes from the Isua super crustal belt in Western Greenland and from similar formations in the nearby Akilia Islands. Carbon entering into rock formations has a concentration of elemental δ13C of about −5.5, where because of a preferential biotic uptake of 12C, biomass has a δ13C of between −20 and −30. These isotopic fingerprints are preserved in the sediments, and Mojzis has used this technique to suggest that life existed on the planet already by 3.85 billion years ago.[27] Lazcano and Miller (1994) suggest that the rapidity of the evolution of life is dictated by the rate of recirculating water through mid-ocean submarine vents. Complete recirculation takes 10 million years, thus any organic compounds produced by then would be altered or destroyed by temperatures exceeding 300 °C (572 °F). """"

I am cirten my point of view is not clear yet to the reader. But it seems to me when the author points to the evidence, he is pointing to a rock. In this rock it shows "time".

ok yes that information is in the rock but since you have not observed 10 million years you arrived at this evidence though math, counting the layers etc.

Please bear with me. I understand that science does grow and evolve so forth and so on.
But sometimes i see people giving all these evidences but when you look at the evidences they are admittedly guess work.

They say the theory of gravity is not comprehended completely. We cannot be authoritative that we have understood the workings of a cell. For one idea there is another.. and each idea does have evidence that suggests thus and such.

AM i off base here?

intelligent guess work.

My other question is ' is there a science that collaborates all the various sciences in to congruity?

and When someone says in rebuttal to the creationist "They think that the laws they observe here have to be true for everywhere" ...does he not eat crow? As science is baffled when the laws of physics break down at the singularity. Oh i bet the person was thinking about the bible.

Here is a tidbit from to and from the comments section of this:

The Person's interpretation of the scientist says: " The scientist says 'this is as good as good as i can get, this theory. Everyone else, whack at it like a pinata and lets see if we can make it better, or disprove my theory and come up with a better one based on evidence.' "

The Agnostic answers "Sounds good and fair. I take issue that your evidence is very like when we look at the sun and watch it move, and then base the science of navigation on it.
And you will only change your mind if i can come up with a study that suggests a flaw in your theory. Or a study that suggests something of my own theory.

But i read in to this remark a little more since to my observation much of what we "know" is arrived at by abstract means, and the Stephen-Urey experiment has yet to create intelligent life, that what you really need is evidence yourselves, you have theories that contradict and sciences that clash. One side of science creating ways to preserve life and another that seeks better ways to exterminate it.

So basically you are asking your would be debater to prove your theory then dis-prove it; or to fail to prove your theory and suggest it is flawed. But science has not proven any of its theories... the theory of relativity is not yet the LAW of relativity. '


The person's interpretation of the intelligent designer says: " The intelligent designer says 'This is how things are made by men on earth. Therefore the universe must be subject to the same laws, so someone intelligent -by man's definition of that word.- must have made the universe.' "

The Agnostic groans and rolls her eyes. "How correct they are."

" alright dude.... great over use of the word "man" to make the ID'er sound all brain washy. And Doesn't physics expect that their laws would be true in the universe? I am sure they might have a theoretical science out there working with "imaginary digits" (please read Stephen Hawkins history of time)


The person to respond to his interpretation of the ID'er says: " There's not really any arguing with that or analyzing it to see if it holds water, because it's based on a closely held philosophical belief, as well as to some extent a desire for that to be true."

The Agnostic sympathises. That must really suck. How many mitosis's have you observed? in order for you to do anything but accept with blind faith your science information you would never be finished with college. And you would , if you look hard enough always find questions.

I understand, being finite humans the mind cannot take in all that knowledge. And the testing procedures would be impossible. i sure wouldn't want to live always proving stuff before i can enjoy it in simplicity. And most humans at some point decide their understanding complete enough to merit FAITH in the seeming general direction of the EVIDENCE.

What spark is it in ourselves that seeks to intelligently design our worlds? And Intelligently reverse engineer the materials at his disposal to see if he can make it for himself?

Is that self reflective and outwardly expressive spark something of divinity? Something of the origin's making?

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Evolution vs Scientific er "intelligent" Design

These are my comments about the Film "Expelled no Intelligence Allowed"

I had never realised how very like the dark ages of yore we modern humans are. I cannot understand why we wont agree that there are some questions we haven't the intelligence nor information enough to discuss with naught but awed curiosity and theory.

We are only able to be conscious of the effect of the "creation" we can only observe the mechanics of the things we see and think, and know only the parts of it and the idea of it that inspire our vision.

What i take form this film is the awareness of how most arguments are won by the attrition of ridicule. Arguments and violence comes from being too proud to admit fallibility. Yet ... to be able to be a person of wisdom and harmony would be truly infallible demeanor For it will always be revising itself and discarding the pettiness which we call Logical.

SO the next time i see amature yet verbally faithful little sci-Nazi's battering a poor faithful soul saying " so do you believe in a child killing god?" That man can answer no but ultimately you do... do you believe in natural selection? How about human assisted natural selection?

Ehh i'd still some how lose the argument by...equivocating.. god bless you.

For alittle clarity to my individual point of view... and perhaps other ways of defending it ..the following articles support me... (er not directly... i am just doing that "right guys" human thing.)

OK... now my audience will be fully pre-indoctrinated and amiable to receive the following brainwashing.

Well isn't that what they call it when a person educated themselves in a cirten opinion and try to make a personal case to defend themselves or define themselves?

Lately i have been feel quite hostile to ward reality....yea silly business , i know.

i get inexplicably angry like i have been manipulated into premature surrender, when i see the So called Logical and Rational side using the same rhyme and meter of white supremacists, feminists, Muslims and atheists.

I feel beaten down... over whelmed with other's false assurances, where i am trying to question. Or where my inquiry would like to tend toward the mystical (ie acceptibily unkown)

I hate it that i loose the argument when i say that human beings are not logical.. we are also creatures who define themselves emotionally and make some decisions on blind impulse. We are both right and left brained and make our errors in comprehension by suppressing one over the other.

Males have always battered down the compassion of the Females. They have killed the female form of bravery and power and strength and intelligence, in favor of their own.

Simple psychotic vanity.

I mean if i went around applying to atheists their own "methods" .. if i could... make arguments against men vs women and batter them in to debilitation... just by shouting So testosterone is a blight on this world. You believe in killing others to win an argument. how logical is that?....

But ... due to the irrational vain side those people wish to ignore they would explode in rage... well justified rage because, well, my forced opinion would be wrong. But they will not realise how they are when they believe strongly that they are correct.

I am also trying to keep myself aware how different we are from each other. How we have our individual realities. And what seems clear to me can be completely obscured to another, many others. And of course vise versa.

But i do know this. There inevitably will always be a counter argument or a counter method to every which way there ever will be.

Knowledge will never declare it's end, but wisdom can be ignored completely.

I was thinking, about "expelled" in juxtaposition with Gelieo. How perfect. Against newton. You get the point don't you...

My point is that those men where correct... and even though their little ideas have been improved upon and clarified.... and in most cases complexioned.......they where correct and fought like hell to just get their observation or question explored legitimately.

So if make me bitter to hear self assured Atheists saying " if they discovered any kind of proof for god or the flood or what have you... we ALL would know, they would be shouting it from all the media." well NO DIPSHIT... they will not. How oftian does a human being consider new information. It show blind trust in the leader to think such information would be treated fairly , it CLEARLY is not. How oftian does humanity suppress individuality and try to enforce control and specific idealism? And you would have the faith that truth and fairness are at liberty to public validation?

SO if history repeats, statistically speaking the Intelligent Designers are on to something. We with the foresight that hindsight can offer can just about BET there is an "other" story to what we are.

I don't know college for this... i need... *cringe* logic.

People who HAVE REAL EDUCATIONS.... wrote books that i have read... and in them i learned that major philosophers and even Ricard Dawkins, in his book, taught me that there really is not end to an non falsifiable argument. There is no real end to the debate on god and It's proper interpretation. And there is ALWAYS ignorance.


someone please explain to me what Equivocating is....

I one made ... or failed miserably at making a point concerning the religion bashing being a red herring the issue that needs looked at is .... here is my quote.. i would not want to be accused of trying to recast my argument, or paraphrasing ...(this perfectly logical stuff is ridiculously difficult)

( i responded to this video, which is an example of the irritating argument fr0m ridiculousness that so reminds me of bigotry and fascism)

""""" (1) i am an avid reader of comments. I was observing the exchange between izar and darkangel.... and Dark's "debilitating" question was..." do you pay taxes that support war?" as if that makes it so he doesn't have to answer about if he believes god killed babies. And my brains keeps screaming out; but... IF DARK lives in a society, then even he is debilitated. Because we ALL PAY TAXES . therefore we all support the evils of our armies and governments.

(2) i was just waiting for someone else to bring that up. how can you accuse me of supporting the evil army, when you also pay taxes that go to support the evil army? SO the question still remains, did god kill babies? yes.. and izar could have turned it on dark by asking," do you rebel against the evil rules, have you lobbied to end evil? " etc. Face it folks humanity is not very interested in ending needless suffering. so we are all as bad as the baby killing god. Do we believe in OURSELVES?

mattb521 Reply Spam
"Face it folks humanity is not very interested in ending needless suffering. "

The most we are guilty of is omission. This is COMPLETELY different than going out of your way to kill babies and kids, stop equivocating.

"so we are all as bad as the baby killing god. Do we believe in OURSELVES?"

straw man due to your false premise. """"""

I would really like to know why i am so stupid i can't best this. "Strawman" why? Because humans are NOT blood thrisy violent evolved apes? "Strawman", because the people in power really DOOOOO care about the public well being and freedom?

Oh yeah and are you saying that non-religious men have NEVER gone out to DELIBERATLY kill babies (and towns and ideas and pretty wemon) ? Are you saying that murder is NOT a normal feature of human psychological and genetic make up and history?

If the atheist says back..." no murder is not a normal part of us. some people are defective for various reasons. " you can answer back.. "wait, isnt that the no true scotsman argument?"
LOL i had never noticed how their own methods could be turned around. (by them i mean the common person who goes about beating up belivers with their psudeo-educated indoctrinated rhetoric)

eh... i am wrong i just know i am....

they so are they i just cant frame the argument that will be heard.