Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

I say homo circularis rationatio and you say potato.

See why we can't have a conversation here.
Thank you for the first entry into the @cladking <=> English dictionary, we commonly used potato to refer to what we call a starchy root vegetable. If you could, can you enlighten us using typical English words what your pseudo-latin phrase "homo circularis rationatio" means.

Thanks in advance

 

[cladking]

I see you ran away from addressing my point. Since Darwin produced the theory in its original form, an entire new line of independent evidence has emerged that not only confirmed it but is so strong and comprehensive, we could make the case without any of the evidence that Darwin used.

One moment you say evidence isn't experiment and the next it is.

Evidence creates hypothesis, not theory. Evidence by definition supports the paradigm because we reason in circles. All evidence has always supported state of the art because this is the way consensus works for homo omnisciencis. If you interpret it in any other way you are an heretic and not be a Peer no matter the logic, experiment, and fact that underlie your argument. In the past someone, an expert, would at least try to explain to you why you're wrong but this happens only in the hard sciences now days. Certainly biology is in most ways a hard science but there are aspects (like Evolution) that are soft science. As I said before computer modeling can be "hard technology" but it can never be hard science and can never underlie theory. THEORY DEPENDS FROM EXPERIMENT; Not observation, not mathematics, and not computer modelling. And most assuredly not by contemplation of the fossil record.

I say homo circularis rationatio and you say potato.

You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off

But oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

 

[Pogo]

Then why not show how whales came out of the ocean to live on land scientifically and how their genome caused earlier versions of whales to go extinct and only the new version survive? Show how the less fit died and why.

You have nothing. You have belief, not experiment.

Uh, I don't think your biology teacher ever told you that whales came out of the ocean.

 

[leroy]

The primary driver of phenotypic change is natural selection. Epigenetics resembles Lamarckian evolution in some respects, but it's not Lamarckian.
The human eye can be explained by simple natural selection. The process is pretty simple and well evidenced.

But if the small changes continue in successive generations they're likely to accumulate. A big change is usually an accumulation of small changes.

??? -- What is the mechanism behind Lamarckian evolution? When has it ever been observed?

But the converse is implied, isn't it? And with the accumulation of small changes, big changes are hard to avoid.

In the context of evolution, sometimes small changes accumulate and produce big changes, sometimes they don’t. So say that small changes always produce big changes is not granted and has not been suported by you

For example some “small changes” are caused by Epigenetics….. but that doesn’t automatically prove that big changes are also cause by epigenetics

For example resistance to antibiotics (small change) can be caused by epigenetics, but that doesn’t mean that the whole immune system evolved through that specific mechanism

anyone claimin that such a a system evolved by epigenetics (or by any other mechanism) would have to provide additional evidence (other than small changes)

Do you disagree with anything in this text?..........if yes, then pease quote my words and explain why you disgaree

If you don’t explicitly disagree, I will assume that you agree……

The human eye can be explained by simple natural selection. The process is pretty simple and well evidenced.

Sure, the part that is not well evidenced is that natural selection acted upon random mutations in order to build a human eye

And given that you presumably agree with the text above. (my prediction) you need more than just evidence for “small changes” to justify such a claim

 

[cladking]

"homo circularis rationatio"

Man whom reasons in circles

 

[Valjean]

Well try reading the whole post, perhaps you will find an answer to your question

@Valjean Said(or implied) that in the context of evolution, small changes lead to big changes …. My answer was “not necessarily” small changes don’t necesairly produce big changes …. Otherwise Lamarkinian evolution would be true (because we observe small changes produced by Lamarkinian mechanisms)

Small changes can accumulate to create big changes. A grain of sand moving one centimeter a year will eventually circle the Earth. Changes don't always lead to big changes. Sometimes the just can't keep up, and the species dies out.
Lamarckian evolution? Show me an example.

You could simply reply “ yes Leroy you are correct @Valjean is wrong in that particular statement” and invite him to admit and correct his mistakes…………… but I understand that according to the rules of your cult, it is strictly forbidden to point the mistakes made by an other member of the same cult.

Cult? Explain, please.

 

[Valjean]

One moment you say evidence isn't experiment and the next it is.

Evidence creates hypothesis, not theory.

And theory depends from experiments attempting to discredit the evidence. Both are evidence-based.

Evidence by definition supports the paradigm because we reason in circles.

No. Evidence supports reality, regardless of our prevailing paradigms.
How are we reasoning in circles?

All evidence has always supported state of the art because this is the way consensus works for homo omnisciencis.

No. Our understanding of the world has undergone radical changes over the past century or so due to evidence uncovered and tested by science.

If you interpret it in any other way you are an heretic and not be a Peer no matter the logic, experiment, and fact that underlie your argument.

Heretic?!
And again, what the heck is a "peer?"

In the past someone, an expert, would at least try to explain to you why you're wrong but this happens only in the hard sciences now days. Certainly biology is in most ways a hard science but there are aspects (like Evolution) that are soft science. As I said before computer modeling can be "hard technology" but it can never be hard science and can never underlie theory. THEORY DEPENDS FROM EXPERIMENT; Not observation, not mathematics, and not computer modelling. And most assuredly not by contemplation of the fossil record.

And the experiment dependent theories support Evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, &c.

 

[Pogo]

Well try reading the whole post, perhaps you will find an answer to your question

@Valjean Said(or implied) that in the context of evolution, small changes lead to big changes …. My answer was “not necessarily” small changes don’t necesairly produce big changes …. Otherwise Lamarkinian evolution would be true (because we observe small changes produced by Lamarkinian mechanisms)

You could simply reply “ yes Leroy you are correct @Valjean is wrong in that particular statement” and invite him to admit and correct his mistakes…………… but I understand that according to the rules of your cult, it is strictly forbidden to point the mistakes made by an other member of the same cult.

Ah, we see your error, your sidetrack into epigenetics which is not at all larmarckianism had nothing to do with @Valjean's attempt to explain that the sum of many small changes can be a big change just as the sum of a string of non-negative numbers can add up to a large number.

We could simply reply as you wish but it would be a lie to avoid petulance like agreeing with a child even though they are wrong just to end the conversation.

 

[Pogo]

One moment you say evidence isn't experiment and the next it is.

Evidence creates hypothesis, not theory. Evidence by definition supports the paradigm because we reason in circles. All evidence has always supported state of the art because this is the way consensus works for homo omnisciencis. If you interpret it in any other way you are an heretic and not be a Peer no matter the logic, experiment, and fact that underlie your argument. In the past someone, an expert, would at least try to explain to you why you're wrong but this happens only in the hard sciences now days. Certainly biology is in most ways a hard science but there are aspects (like Evolution) that are soft science. As I said before computer modeling can be "hard technology" but it can never be hard science and can never underlie theory. THEORY DEPENDS FROM EXPERIMENT; Not observation, not mathematics, and not computer modelling. And most assuredly not by contemplation of the fossil record.



You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off

But oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

I don't think it will break our's.

Fossils are evidence, they do not qualify as experiments unless you are claiming an unknown being experimenting.

 

[Valjean]

In the context of evolution, sometimes small changes accumulate and produce big changes, sometimes they don’t. So say that small changes always produce big changes is not granted and has not been suported by you

For example some “small changes” are caused by Epigenetics….. but that doesn’t automatically prove that big changes are also cause by epigenetics

Who's talking about epigenetics?

For example resistance to antibiotics (small change) can be caused by epigenetics, but that doesn’t mean that the whole immune system evolved through that specific mechanism

anyone claimin that such a a system evolved by epigenetics (or by any other mechanism) would have to provide additional evidence (other than small changes)

Do you disagree with anything in this text?..........if yes, then pease quote my words and explain why you disgaree

If you don’t explicitly disagree, I will assume that you agree……

OK: Nobody's talking about epigenetics. I'm talking about simple, old-fashioned Natural Selection.

Sure, the part that is not well evidenced is that natural selection acted upon random mutations in order to build a human eye

No, not just random mutation. And the sequences are well evidenced, even in existing species. The whole sequence is right there, under our noses.

And given that you presumably agree with the text above. (my prediction) you need more than just evidence for “small changes” to justify such a claim

Did you ever have a dog or cat who had puppies/kittens? Were they all the same?
The variation -- small changes -- is obvious.

 

[leroy]

A grain of sand moving one centimeter a year will eventually circle the Earth.

Not necessarily, the grain of sand could have been moving in circles …….If you prove to me that the grain moved 1cm yesterday, that observation by itself wouldn’t show that the grain will eventually circle the earth……………(additional evidence is required)

Changes don't always lead to big changes. Sometimes the just can't keep up, and the species dies out.

or sometimes, there could be limits.........Or insuperable barriers, like an ocean preventing the grain of sand to keep moving or irreducible complex step

If you affirm that the grain of sand will eventauly circle the earth, it is your burden to show that there is no ocean preventing the trip (or that there is a mechanism that would allow it to overcome the obstacle)

If you affirm that the eye evolved by random mutations and NS it is your burden to show that there are no IC complex steps or that there is a mechanism that can overcome that obstacle


The end point is that “small steps by themselves” dont prove “big steps”

Lamarckian evolution? Show me an example.

Cult? Explain, please.

Yes internet atheism is a cult that includes stong rules like

1 avoid the burden proof at all cost

2 keep the position vague and ambiguous (don’t reject nor deny anything)

3 “win” arguments with semantic tricks

4 don’t admit mistakes nor point to mistakes made by others from the same cult

5 believe by faith that everything has a naturalistic explanation …

etc

 

[Valjean]

Man whom reasons in circles

Please explain this circular reasoning.

 

[Pogo]

Man whom reasons in circles

Ah so you are a potato.

 

[Pogo]

Not necessarily, the grain of sand could have been moving in circles …….If you prove to me that the grain moved 1cm yesterday, that observation by itself wouldn’t show that the grain will eventually circle the earth……………(additional evidence is required)





or sometimes, there could be limits.........Or insuperable barriers, like an ocean preventing the grain of sand to keep moving or irreducible complex step

If you affirm that the grain of sand will eventauly circle the earth, it is your burden to show that there is no ocean preventing the trip (or that there is a mechanism that would allow it to overcome the obstacle)

If you affirm that the eye evolved by random mutations and NS it is your burden to show that there are no IC complex steps or that there is a mechanism that can overcome that obstacle


The end point is that “small steps by themselves” dont prove “big steps”


Yes internet atheism is a cult that includes stong rules like

1 avoid the burden proof at all cost

2 keep the position vague and ambiguous (don’t reject nor deny anything)

3 “win” arguments with semantic tricks

4 don’t admit mistakes nor point to mistakes made by others from the same cult

5 believe by faith that everything has a naturalistic explanation …

etc

Your grain of sand might not circle the earth because we didn't specify a direction is an example of your attempting to justify your position with a semantic trick, it is all you actually have to pretend that your position might be valid because you certainly don't have any evidence, just your tiny little doubts. LOL

 

[leroy]

Who's talking about epigenetics?

I used epigenetics as an example of a mechanism that causes small changes but not necesairly big changes

Given that you didn’t explicitly disagreed with any of my claims I will move on and assume that you agree

No, not just random mutation.

Agree, it would be naive to suggest that the eye evolved just by random mutations + natural selection

Did you ever have a dog or cat who had puppies/kittens? Were they all the same?

Yes but the fact that the puppies are not the same, doesn’t automatically prove that they evolved from a fish (additional evidence is required)

And perhaps you do have that evidence , my point is that you need more than “just small changes”

 

[Whateverist]

I believe that our thinking is always formatted in words even when we don't experience them. Our language is one dimensional, symbolic, and analog and this certainly appears to format our thinking.

Probably better to say "always formatable in words" rather than imply the words are fundamentally required. "Ineffable" seems to be a notion people felt would get some use if given a word. Do you have a theory of how language evolved. I'd say it started as singing* but language functions off of metaphor with everything being like something else or some combination of somethings else.

I think of language as primarily evolved for person to person communication. Using it intrapersonally creates more distance between our thoughts and the world than necessary.

* https://www.npr.org/2010/08/16/1291...ere is a lot of,language in a similar fashion.

 

[leroy]

Ah, we see your error, your sidetrack into epigenetics which is not at all larmarckianism had nothing to do with @Valjean's attempt to explain that the sum of many small changes can be a big change just as the sum of a string of non-negative numbers can add up to a large number.

We could simply reply as you wish but it would be a lie to avoid petulance like agreeing with a child even though they are wrong just to end the conversation.

yes I would say that epigenetics is exactly what Lamarck would have predicted…………. But my point is not dependent on that

my point is that epigenetics (you can call it Lamarckism or not) produces small “micro evolutionary changes” but that by itslef doesn’t proves that this mechanism + time also produces big macro evolutionary changes

 

[Pogo]

Agree, it would be naive to suggest that the eye evolved just by random mutations + natural selection

Then tell us oh wise one, what other demonstrable mechanisms are involved. No sky pixies, just something we can study to see if you have any reason to call us naive instead of realizing that we are simplifying to major causes.

Or do you admit that you have nothing more than a pitiful semantic argument.

 

[leroy]

Your grain of sand might not circle the earth because we didn't specify a direction is an example of your attempting to justify your position with a semantic trick, it is all you actually have to pretend that your position might be valid because you certainly don't have any evidence, just your tiny little doubts. LOL

In other words, you agree with me, but you don’t what to admit t explicitly

 

[leroy]

Your grain of sand might not circle the earth because we didn't specify a direction is an example of your attempting to justify your position with a semantic trick, it is all you actually have to pretend that your position might be valid because you certainly don't have any evidence, just your tiny little doubts. LOL

In other words, you agree with me, but you don’t what to admit t explicitly