Alun wrote: ....Not just an assertion. My characterization is based on the fact that you've only presented conclusions, not any premises that can be used to reasonably reach those conclusions.
Well, I can see why you reasonably reached that reasonable or unreasonable conclusion!
My one and only premise is the POP: the Premise of Premises, which is another TOE: the Theory Of Everything: that POP and TOE is Love and Respect of all words and their opposites, which makes Love also another POP, the Personality of Personalities, which is what Character is.
Example of Applied Love as in Applied Math: Because Love loves all things and their opposites, Love is the reason for everything, and so makes everything reasonable, even makes even the unreasonable reasonable!
So for example, with that Premise of Love, you wd have been able to properly characterize and reasonably see how and why I reached my assertive conclusions or conclusionary assertions even if they were unreasonable to you!:)
Alun wrote: ape wrote:
But, Alun, if you made that assertive argument, you wd be in error in your interpretation of the facts under your observations
Yes, because a wise man is also a fool and so deluded fools must also be wise men!:)
So the real foolishness is Hate for fools!
and the real wisdom is Love for the fool and the wiseman, who is actually the one and the same person!:idea:
Alun wrote:Ok, well your sources are in error in their interpretations of the facts.
Correct, but their interpretation of the facts cd only be in error only if, like you, and like I used to be, they hate fools!:idea:
To be inerrant in attitude and character and in axiom or in premise, we have to love being in error and inerrant!:)
Alun wrote:Now what? Now you come up with reasons for those statements, rather than simply repeating them.
Just did and explicitly too, monsieur, so you cd do it for yourself at all times and so do for me the next time I assume or presume the self-evident evidence of the Premise Of Premises: Love for evolution and its opposite!
ape wrote:Do you see how any bias of Hate you have also affects your interpretation of the best evidence?
Yes, if I had a bias, it would affect my interpretations, that is why I am presenting my whole argument, not just my conclusions--that is why I am not just asserting
that evolution occurs by natural selection.
Excellent for effort!
But to correct your Bias of Hate for any word as you interpret the body of evidence, you have to present both OPPOSITES: the reasons FOR evolution and AGAINST evolution, for evolution and for no evolution.
You can't just lock in on the likely suspect and ignore a set-up!:idea:
So: when we present the whole argument and complete reason for Evolution, that is still HALF the story!
What bout any other suspects?
Alun wrote:Now you can see whether I am reasoning correctly and whether my premises are true, so you can decide objectively, regardless of my biases.
Uh uh! Any Premise of Hate or any Hate in your premise makes your premise automatically de facto and ipso facto illogical and unreasonale and not impartial, and so makes your subsequent perfect logic imperfect and illogical, makes you illogically logical, unreasonably reasonable, wrong in your rightness, in error in your inerrancy, and etc, and vice versa!:)
Example: If your premise is, and so you think, that you are right side up when you are actually up side down, --which makes your premise wrong or in error from the get-go, then you will and must subsequently and logically and reasonably think that you are being turned upside down when you are actually being turned right side up!:)
So error of bias in premise can only be corrected IN the premise, NOT in the logic, which logic is nothing but logical of itself, nor in presenting the whole logical argument or assertion.
So? So you have to love both evolution and whatever is its opposite to you to correct the bias of Hate in all your axioms or premises or hypotheticals! Qed.
Alun wrote: ape wrote:
Alun wrote:I've put the argument up precisely so that you don't have to just trust me you can trust the evidence.
Ah! But that's the point: the evidence is just the evidence: your interpretation of it, HOW you see it, is the key! And so your bias is the key of of that key!
No, you can look at the evidence too, because I put it right here in front of you.
I, Me, Moi, I Ape or you or anyone can look at the evidence and see all of it because and when I and whoever else love both what we see and don't see!
But you or me with any bias of Hate for any word are in effect blinded by the light of the evidence since you or me can look but can't see since you or I won't see since there are none so blind as those who do not want to see, and none who so unwilling to see as those who already hate what they are about to look at!:idea:
Alun wrote:If you really think it's a flower, not a river, then you should explain what about it makes it a flower, not a river.
See how without Love for all words and their opposites, we can not see what evidence is self-evidently right before our eyes? The reason is words are the eyes of our eyes, and the word Love is the Eye of All Words!
So all rivers are also flowers. Qed.
As a side-bar, do you now see why and how we call flowers flowers? Because they flow out of stems! So? What are 'flowers' really? What's their real name?
One more: so what do all women have each month after puberty and until menopause:
Flo-ers or floW-ers?
See how all of sudden, you are seeing more?
What hapened? You are using just ONE MORE WORD, just one more EYE of your eyes!
Now surprise and delight your other peers with your INsight!
Alun wrote:Ok, where does that calculation come from? What are the parameters?
Your interest is refreshing!
You can do a Google or read the book!:idea:
Alun wrote:I do not have the patience to go digging through another creationist book.
Lack of patience in this case exposes a possible if not probable case of the presence of the Bias of Hate towards oneself as sick: sick people are patients ans so patient people lool sick!
I already found a premise that contradicts the experimental results of my OP.
Hmmm If your premise includes the Bias of Hate for contras, it is a wrong premise even when the results are correct...which means the results contain more results than you can see or than you are seeing, and that we can right in the wrong!
Alun wrote: If you think he supports the argument with more than this premise, or that my experimental results are invalid, then the pressure is on you to show that.
No pressure at all since I, like Einstein, just deal with the premise! Premise right, conclusion and its opposite are both right!:)
ape wrote:I am the one who was first concerned and then you ALSO joined me in that concern!:idea:
I don't care about anyone's motives when they are presenting their evidence in an objective manner.
Agreed! The motive or sub-motive or 2ndary motive is always irrelevant. What is always relevant is the attitude of mind or the Motive of Motives of itself: that is what makes the other sub-motives right or wrong, and is what is the objective manner of Love and Respect for all pros and all cons, all objects and all subjects!;)
Example: The Bias of Malice or Hate in Mind is the attitude or Prime Mover or Prime Motive that makes wrong any motive for killing anyone or for AH's motive and so is what makes his motive wrong.
Nothing wrong with the motive of being sexually or politically free except the Bias of Hate for being unfree!
So too nothing wrong with Evolution except any the Bias of Malice or Disrspect for its opposite in the Evolutionist. And vice versa!
Alun wrote:I would care about motives if they stated this as a part of their argument for the position, in so far as I would then likely not trust their argument.
The Bias of Hate for any word is the motive which auto-covers all other words and so all other motives...automatically.
Example: To love or hate fools is to love or hate every one else and everything else as a fool or as foolish. So it's one for all and all for one.
So we have to ever care about the MOM at all times for all subjects!
Alun wrote: ape wrote:
The Science of the Bias of Love --a la Lady Justice--involves an attachment of mind to both opposites and so means you can be SAD in Love when proven wrong and so still love what or who was or is wrong!
I am not sure that I would hate sadness either, but I do not fully understand what it means to love a concept such as wrongness or rightness. As best I can manage, I would love whatever it is that is true about the world, and therefore I would not hate for the theory to be wrong, since knowing this would bring me closer to the truth.
Well expressed even with a lack of full understanding!
It has to do witjh you having an attitude of Love and Respect for you unders all conditions and at all times.
And since our brains work by words and all words have opposites, to have that One Right Attitude or Motive of Mind of Love and Respect for yourself at all times, you just have to love yourself as all words and their opposites so that you auto-bring that Fairminded attitude to every other person and subject--just as you had as a kid when youi used to say :IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE!
EXAMPLE: So to hate myself as an evolutionist or to hate evolution is to be a poor creationist-- since the God I believe created everything tells me that to hate an evolutionist is to hate Him since he COULD have done it that evolving way--especially since 'EVOLUTION' is an anagram of 'LOVEUTION.'!!!!!!
Alun wrote: ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Science does not work like a criminal court. Ideas do not have the right to be treated as true until proven false.
Ooops! It is as much like a criminal court as it is not! Remember your opposites! And opposites are also composites!:) So! So it is both as with sad and glad!
I use negation to refer to the immediate context; it is a wasteful concept if negation is also not negation.
Exactly!:) The negative of negative is positive!:idea:
ape wrote:This forum is the court...
But none of those conditions imply that the matter in question--the principle of treating a person innocent until proven guilty--translates into the analogy.
Think flowers and rivers again!:) And think The Theory of Relativity!
When loved, each word is related to or is a relative of or is analogous to or comparable to or on par with or a metaphor for all other words!
How is a road like a man? It has shoulders!:)
So all those conditions apply: a guilty man is imnocent of innocence, and an innocent man is guilty of innocence!
This Lack of Love for being guilty is why evolutionists will not deal and so can not deal with: But where did all of this stuff that evolved come from in the first place?
In fact it does not;
It is both: similes and dis-similes!:idea:
Alun wrote:we treat things as false until they are proven true.
But do you have the Bias of Love for both the false and the true, or do you have the Bias of Hate for the false? The truth is the father of lies. The lie is the father of truths!:idea:
ape wrote:So you have to work on eliminating that Bias of Hate for those you distrust and disprove.
The way I love those I distrust is by holding them to a higher standard of inquiry.
Good, but not good enough: you have to hold the Same 100% Level of Love for both those you hold higher and lower, both the false and the true, both opposites at all times.
Alun wrote:No, if I were proposing a controversial theory, or a theory very similar to many failed theories, I would expect people to be more skeptical. This is how all of science operates, not just how it treats creationism (which is in fact pseudoscience).
See how self-defeating that is? You are too hard on yourself and so too hard on others!
We've gotten quite far with this principle. As I said, it is used for any realm of science. Therefore I think this would be, in your terms, "tough love."
Most Improved Thinker's Award to you, Alun!:) Now you're talking! And tough Love means loving those you are soft on and those you are tough with with the same 100% Love!:)
ape wrote:Reason without Love for absurdities or the unreasonable is poor logic--really poor premise---since by CD's own reasoning in this para it now takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation!!:)
I disagree. Just because something seems absurd at first glance does not mean that it requires faith to accept.[/quote]
Excellent! Exactly! So that lack of faith applies to the absurdity of creation too! Just showing you how. CD can be used against CD due to his Bias of Hate for whatever word!:)
Alun wrote:If you described an airplane to St. Aquinas, he would consider it absurd.
Only if St. Aquinas hated or had the BIAS OF HATE for birds!:)
In Love of birds and air and plain clothes AND SHIPS, he must have already thought of 'PLAIN BIRDS' and 'SHIPS OF THE AIR' AND 'PLAIN AIRSHIPS!
You mean you can't imagine he ever saw a leaf fly or a horse-fly or hailstones fly or trees fly or the Sun fly or the Moon fly or Comets fly or Meteors fly or Stars fly as they free-fall or etc?:)
Alun wrote:Yet if we tested the claim about airplanes, we'd see that they do in fact work as described; we don't need faith to believe in them.
Exactly! So the opposite of evolution does not need faith to believe in either!:)
Not to mention that an eye has to work perfectly the first time--or what's an eye for? Let's just go by sonar and be blind as bats who see by their ears!
No, eyes still don't work "perfectly." Again, bacteria respond to light; at the tiniest level, vision is possible. Hence gradual change to get better and better vision is possible.[/quote]
Exactly! There is imperfection in perfection! So eyes working perfectly includes them seeing well by seeing imperfectly!
Sonar works perfectly by working imperectly!:idea: Check out The FLAWED POT.
Alun wrote: ape wrote:
Hmmm and how was evidence evalauated? Bias-free?
Yes, at least in its presentation. He made a prediction, and only later did we discover that it held.
Bias covers preture and post-ture and all in-between.
And where did that rhodopsin-protein come from?
How did it get the idea to form an eye!
I do not know exactly how rhodopsin evolved, since bacterial fossils tend to be hard to analyze. This gets into the unknown areas of biogenesis as well, ...[/quote]
Ahem! Those areas are unlnown only due to us being wilfully ignorant.
Alun wrote: ape wrote:
The only problem? The evidence matched the opposing theory a lot better based on Occam's Razor!
No, natural selection does not involve an outside intelligence, whereas ID does.
NS involves inside intel and so auto involves outside intel just as I'd involves both outside and inside intel!
Alun wrote:That is an extraneous addition to the theory, unless the intelligence actually explains something. What is it that natural selection cannot explain?
What's extra is also intra or entra!
NS explains it all: That its inside intel means outside intel!:)
Premise #1 is now right either because I only now noticed the word 'usually' or because you added it since I last read it!
I did add the "usually," because it made it clearer. I had originally intended that 'usually' be implied, in a sense; i.e. in cases where P1-0 doesn't hold, then that would draw everything into question--which is true.[/quote]
Sigh Honesty in Love does beget honesty --and hopefully in Love!
ape wrote:This alternative basis also fully explains from where all the building blocks of all life came, which explanation the TOE fails to do by not wanting to include it and thus excluding this concern in its purview.
Eh? Yes I am not
talking about biogenesis.
Eh? Eh eh! NS has a genesis that deal with all life and so does deal with biogenesis IN OTHER WORDS!