If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.
The Magic Trick
An anonymous commenter writes:
"It is interesting that you say that research done by others is "lies, creative stories, loopy logic, and insanity' however you do not support any of your statements with evidence. Debate is essential to maintain a high quality of research in society however you must support your claims. As I am sure you know the best kind of evidence is peer reviewed research, conducted without bias. I encourage you to seek evidence to support your argument..."
(Read the article that prompted this comment HERE)
(See the entire comment with shortened answers HERE)
The comment above is slick Neuro Linguistic Programming hypnotic technique mixed with deception. Neuro Linguistic Programming techniques are the same techniques that people use on themselves to make themselves believe in lies. They don't always use these techniques on purpose. It comes naturally. Here, debate is used to avoid receiving truth. Debate rarely solves anything. Discussion often can resolve issues if the minds are open to God's revelation and closed to Satan's lies.
The first sentence has two distinct parts. The first part is a misquote that is wrapped in a Neuro Linguistic Programming (hypnotic technique) double-nested presupposition, and presuppositions are used to mask the fact that the misquote amounts to an equivocation and the clever use of circular reasoning. The second part is also not true and is a misdirection.
"It is interesting that you say that research done by others is "lies, creative stories, loopy logic, and insanity'"
The false statement that is being presupposed is that the SeekFind.net page says, "research done by others is 'lies, creative stories, loopy logic, and insanity'"
The SeekFind.net page actually says: "Evolutionism maintains itself on lies, creative stories, loopy logic, and insanity." This is a true statement and the evidence of this can be found on many pages in this site. The HIV hoax is just one of the examples.
This misquote is also an interesting bit of equivocation (changing the meaning of a word in the middle of a thought to confuse the audience). The hidden claim is that "Evolutionism" equals "research done by others." Is that true? Does "Evolutionism" equal "research done by others?" Are these really equivalent thoughts as this bit of equivocation implies? Is Evolutionism based on "research" or is it based on "lies, creative stories, loopy logic, and insanity"? Surprise! Our commenter is assuming the very thing that he or she is trying to prove--this small half of a sentence also contains some crafty begging the question (assuming the point at issue), which is sometimes called circular reasoning. For those who engage in conversations with Evolutionists, the public schools are intense training grounds for this type of loopy logic. (It's a shame that tax dollars are wasted in this way causing so much destruction of young minds.) This is why you may feel frustrated and confused when talking to Evolutionists. Notice that four different self-deceptive methods of faulty logic are being used in one half of one sentence. When you are actively engaged in a conversation, analysis of this type of logic is quite difficult. You may be able to catch two or even three of the logical errors, but the objective seems to be to overload you with baloney so that you have trouble responding to the actual issue and keeping the discussion on track.
It is important to know about presuppositions. They are powerful. The classic example of a presupposition is that of the lawyer who asks, "Are you still beating your wife?" The presupposition is the word, "still." Nested presuppositions, such as the one used by our commenter, are harder to respond to. This lawyer might have nested the presupposition by saying, "You know that you are still beating your wife." The lawyer is then accusing the person of knowing and the knowing presupposes that the beating is still going on and the "still" presupposes the beating.
There can be times when there nothing wrong with using presuppositions, but you should be aware that they tend to keep people from addressing the actual message. As a result, the actual message is accepted without being challenged and it is tucked away in the mind. There is something wrong with presupposing a lie as you see in this example.
The first presupposition in our commenter's first sentence is this: "It is interesting." The second presupposition, nested in the first, is in the word, "that," followed by, "you say," followed by the misquote and the begging of the question.
"however you do not support any of your statements with evidence."
First, while it might be true the SeekFind.net sometimes makes statements as declarations without supplying any evidence at all (I suppose that everyone does this), it is not true that SeekFind.net does not support any of its statements with evidence. This site is filled with evidence, and much of this evidence supports the statement to which our commenter is referring. Second, the commenter is trying to shift the burden of proof regarding whether HIV/AIDS research demonstrats Evolution. Note that numerous Atheist and Evolutionist websites and other Atheistic and Liberal evangelistic efforts contend that HIV is an example or proof of Evolutionism's assumptions. We have seen no evidence presented to support these contentions. SeekFind.net has to assume that the Atheist and Liberal websites, PBS programs, etc. would have presented evidence if there were any. The Evolutionists do have the burden of proof just as anyone claiming that God does not exist has the burden of proof.
"Debate is essential to maintain a high quality of research in society however you must support your claims. As I am sure you know the best kind of evidence is peer reviewed research, conducted without bias. I encourage you to seek evidence to support your argument."
Our anonymous commenter makes several statements here without supplying any evidence to support the commenter's argument, which is interesting since the commenter is claiming that in his or her set of rules SeekFind.net should supply evidence for claims made. Perhaps this is a case of applying a double standard. The commenter claims: "Debate is essential to maintain a high quality of research in society." Is that true? Is there good science to back that up or is it simply a baseless statement that is taken as an axiom? Axioms are just assumptions, things that people make up and claim to be true. Perhaps debate rarely results in high-quality research in society.
The commenter again uses presupposition: "As I am sure you know." What is the evidence that proves that the best kind of evidence is peer reviewed research? The Bible does say: "Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed." However, it also says: "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." It also says: "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." It also warns of taking the advice of a fool. Who are the peers? Are they ungodly or godly? The commenter again takes the role of advisor, urging SeekFind.net to seek evidence, a site that is filled with all kinds of evidence, yet the commenter offers no evidence for his or her claims and uses all sorts of poor reasoning in making those claims.
Here are some resources for conversations with unbelievers:
Last updated: Jun, 2013
Answers for Witness
Stories Versus Revelation
Creation, Flood, Etc.
Creation v. Evolution
Comment: Reverse Burden of Proof
Toons & Vids
Evolutionistic's Nefarious Campaign To Confuse America's Children And Undermine Scientific Understanding.
How do Evolution's presuppositions and false logic fool people?
How does rationalism enable people to put across their ideas by providing false proof?
Selective Enforcement, Coercion, and Fascism
Anti-Bible Commenter Tries To Reverse the Burden of Proof
Questions and Answers
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures
How can we know anything about anything?
That's the real question