Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[wellwisher]

Atheism negates a Creator. PERIOD.

Atheism tries to negate a deterministic creator, with its lack of belief in any God. However, it can accept a blind creator, based on dice and cards. It is an odd religion, where black box blindness leads those who say they can see. Why is that even called science? Black box means in the dark; ignorance. Age of Enlightenment was about science seeing the light of reason.

This topic is about faith in random miracles, in what should be a rational universe. If you were to win the lottery would that be close to a personal miracle; Lady Luck smiling at you? The steps of evolution have no predictable deterministic path due to the whims of lady luck. Only natural selection does any determining, but only after the blindman's prophesy. This approach is similar to a binary religion of Lady Luck and Mother Nature teaming up; it takes a village. Lady Luck is whimsical while Mother Nature is more pragmatic.

Natural selection tries to make up for the blind whims of the black box of Atheist creation, by using its natural common sense to clean up the mess that randon creation can and will cause. Creationism has this two step approach of create and select wrapped as one package. Instead of one eye blind, so the other discerning eye cannot see in stereo or 3-D, but only 2-D, Creation has two determinstic eyes for stereo or 3-D viewing. This is more advanced.

I like the latter approach better since this is the best approach to do development work where something real and even subject to law suits and economic standards has to be made. One needs to use solid theory and not disjointed theory that you will need to make solid before you can even begin. If humans were made in God's image, than the way humans create is how God created first.

In human creations, ideas appear from educated guesses, experience and even research. These seed ideas are first filtered before going to production. If they do not pan out, as is, they will be further developed and then tested and retested, before going into production and startup. A determistic creator has his plan all set and tested, with the proper R&D, ahead of time.

I tend to think Atheism's view of Creation is like a variation of lady luck and mother nature, but with Lady luck, as God, on a permanent winning steak. They do not see that as possible, forever. But Creation is not about luck, but about doing all the foundational work and planning in advance; R&D before ground breaking and production. Brooding over the deep. Law of Physics do not happen by chance and selection. That is all settled, before you flip the switch, so you have two eyes to see it in 3-D; depth perception.

 

[Pogo]

Real experiment is easy enough. Select individuals based on behavior and attempt to breed a new species on that and try breeding the "same" new species using "survival of the fittest" as a control. For instance you can select flies that hide from a flyswatter by landing on the underside of surfaces to get a new species that almost always does this. My hypothesis is that in only a few generations you'll have upside down flies while other methods will be highly ineffective.

This is pretty good, it is a reasonable outline of an experiment.
Take a population of flies Split it into two identical environments with the exception that one has a fly swatter that will kill some of them when they land on a target while the other has the target and flyswatter but it doesn't move.
Raise them in these environments for several, (probably many) generations.
Hypothesis, the flies in the active swatter environment will become less likely to land on the target than the control.


Guess what it will probably work given enough time and your HS teacher would smile because in your own roundabout way you have just demonstrated the S from RM+NS though technically it is AS in this case because your selection process is Artificial Selection in this case.

The best part is why it works which was hypothesized over 150 years ago by a guy named Darwin.

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated the effect of selective pressure on a population resulting in two behaviourally different subpopulations.
This is an excellent though tedious demonstration of a part of Darwin's theory.

For a more natural though less clearcut demonstration due to data difficulties see Peppered Moths in Industrial England.

"Up until the 1800s, most of the Peppered Moths in Britain were light in colour – a form called typica. However, in 1811 a dark form of the Peppered Moth, called carbonaria, was discovered in Britain for the first time. Over the course of the next 150 years, the dark form spread quickly in polluted areas of the countryside, while the light form remained more common in unpolluted areas.

Previous experiments had shown that the colour of British Peppered Moths was determined by a single gene. Individuals with one variant of the gene (allele) were light, and individuals with another allele were dark.

Observations​

Dark Peppered Moths were more common than light Peppered Moths in polluted areas of the countryside.

Light Peppered Moths remained more common than dark Peppered Moths in unpolluted areas of the countryside."

For the rest of the article.
Learning zone Oxford Peppered Moth

Evidence keeps piling up that Darwin had the basics correct.

note, no consciousness is required, because the flies already landed on random sides, just the swatted ones did not reproduce because they were dead and so the Random part of their behaviour already existed to be selected.

 

[Pogo]

Natural selection tries to make up for the blind whims of the black box of Atheist creation, by using its natural common sense to clean up the mess that randon creation can and will cause.

Another inadvertent understanding of Darwinian evolution though with unnecessary commentary on the source of variation. When offspring are created by their parents(s), their is some amount of messy variation and along comes Nature which picks through that variation in that some will reproduce more than others. Those that do will come to be greater in number. This is evolution whether you ascribe the source of the variation to a god or the workings of chemistry.

In hindsight, once you realize that certain traits are heritable and not everyone reproduces it becomes common sensically obvious.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In hindsight, once you realize that certain traits are heritable and not everyone reproduces it becomes common sensically obvious.

Supposedly, when Thomas Huxley heard about Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, he exclaimed something along the lines of "How stupid of me not to have thought of it before!"

 

[leroy]

And that is your mistake.
As so many people in this thread have pointed out to you already.

Exactly, but the problem is that pointing out the problem is not enough, you have to show that causation “always” and ”necessarily” occurs within time

I don't say so. Physics says so.

Not granted, but Physics doesn’t have a say on the origin of the physical world anyway……………what you have to justify is why would the cause of the universe, be limited by the laws of the universe.

Ironically, the very wiki article YOU yourself quoted from said so.

The wiki article, talks about the controversy o weather if causation “requires time” or not, the article quotes papers on both sides…………… the issue is ¿why did you decided that one side is conclusively wrong ?.........why not Keeping an open mind, and accept that both are resanoble possibilities?

If science can't (n your opinion), what makes you think "philosophy" can?

I asked you elsewhere, what alternative do you suggest……..(you answered I don’t know)…….. the reason I asked that question, because it seems to me that all imaginable alternatives have the same problem, no matter what alternative you pick , you will always have to deal with “causality” without time..........am I wrong?

--
from the wiki articlle

Some writers have held that causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.[2][3][4]

In summary, this seems to be our point of disagreement , I argue that cause and effect are metaphysically prior to cause and effect you argue the opposite…………….. why are you so sure that you are correct in such a controversial topic?.................do you understand that I need more than “I am correct because I say so”

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you have to show that causation “always” and ”necessarily” occurs within time

I guess that you don't know what occur means. Or cause.

why did you decided that one side is conclusively wrong ?.........why not Keeping an open mind, and accept that both are resanoble possibilities?

Your position isn't reasonable. It's incoherent (self-contradictory). Change requites time.

And his mind and mine are open, but you've offered nothing to consider. This (above) is has no persuasive power, nor does the last sentence below. Why should that matter? (I've readded the comment you omitted ending with future, which also implies time.)

"In general, a process has many causes,[1] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Some writers have held that causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space."

These apologetics are linguistic sleights-of-hand. The believer asserts whatever he likes with no evidence while insisting that incoherent ideas make sense because he accepts them. This is how the free will discussions go, too - believer simply insisting that logically impossible claims are correct anyway and then adding a few words about gods being out of time and the rules of reason not applying.

Believe whatever you like, but you're going to need to do better than this to change minds. Has anybody agreed with you yet?

 

[leroy]

I'm not seeing any contradiction. Clarify, please.

There is a difference between

1 organisms evolve just by natural selection acting upon random mutations

2 organisms evolve by various mechanism including (but not limited to)…selection acting upon random mutations ……………

Which one is it? In some post you seem to be affirming 1 and in others you seem to be affirming 2


...
other mechanisms could be nonrandom mutations (or nonrandom variation ) examples of nonrandom variation could be epigenetics , transposons, Natural genetic engineering etc. do you think that these mechanisms (and/or other mechanisms) play an important role?

 

[leroy]

Not seeming able to admit error is correct, but it is not "You don't admit error".

seem the same to me.........what is the difference?

 

[leroy]

Your position isn't reasonable. It's incoherent (self-contradictory). Change requites time.

That is far from “obviously true”……you need more that “because I say so” to support that claim

Believe whatever you like, but you're going to need to do better than this to change minds. Has anybody agreed with you yet?

I bet yes, I bet that many have go from:

1 I am nearly 100% sure that change requires time

To

2 hmmm perhaps not, perhaps change doesn’t necessarily requires time, there is at least room for reasonable doubt

But I also bet that no skeptic would admit it

 

[leroy]

Ah here you are again being unable to differentiate between an opinion and a statement of fact.
Which I will argue as a fact based on the post you just made.

You are very strange people .... Why not simply granting that I do admit mistakes and admitting that the previous accusation (opinion or not) is wrong ? ...... Why this endless and boring mental gymnastics?

 

[Pogo]

There is a difference between

1 organisms evolve just by random mutations acting upon natural selection

2 organisms evolve by various mechanism including (but not limited to) random mutations acting upon natural selection………………

Which one is it? In some post you seem to be affirming 1 and in others you seem to be affirming 2


...
other mechanisms could be nonrandom mutations (or nonrandom variation ) examples of nonrandom variation could be epigenetics , transposons, Natural genetic engineering etc. do you think that these mechanisms (and/or other mechanisms) play an important role?

Neither, they are both idiotic misrepresentation of evolution.

mutations do not act on natural selection.

Whether mutations are the sole source or one of a number of mechanisms is also not terribly important, evolution theory has long since incorporated numerous sources but for the sake of simplicity, mutations has taken on the general meaning of genetic change in the process that is heritable to save us from writing a book every time the word is used as a generality. Evolution has also expanded to include not entirely genetically related but still relevant in terms of a populations success in an environment.

These "gotcha" type questions indicate not an understanding (especially when you don't even recognize getting the basics bass akwards) but a desire to incorporate a personal bias and have it thought of as more than just wishful thinking.

If you think something has been left out of the theory, there is a simple and well recognized method for getting it included.
hypothesize a testable idea, set up a test and check results vs hypothesis.
However just saying something might be is not sufficient to grant the thought or belief status in a scientific discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

But you just can't have that discussion with many here. As we've agreed, when interacting with such people, there has to be another purpose, or why bother?

Yes, I am agnostic regarding gods, but not the one you call God.

So you do deny (or say you don't believe) there is the God as discussed in the Bible. But you are not sure if there are other gods.Maybe gods do exist, maybe they don't, insofar as you think. Would you agree with that assessment?
So -- 1. You say the God as described in the Bible does not exist. And 2. other gods may or may not exist, you don't know.

 

[leroy]

Another creationist false dichotomy, not chance leaves all other possibilities and really says nothing as you and @leroy so frequently confuse.

I know you are not use to it……… but you are expected to support your accusations……….. if it is not a dichotomy then what other alternative is there?

You shouldn’t expect us to accept it, just because you say so

 

[leroy]

Neither, they are both idiotic misrepresentation of evolution.

mutations do not act on natural selection.

granted my mistake (typo)........ it is the other way arround . it is natrual selection acting upon random mutations

Whether mutations are the sole source or one of a number of mechanisms is also not terribly important, evolution theory has long since incorporated numerous sources but for the sake of simplicity, mutations has taken on the general meaning of genetic change

Yes, I agree “mutation” is an appropriate word for “genetic variation” … I am not an atheist, I don’t not play idiotic semantics.

The key word that you conveniently excluded is “random”………….. do you affirm that random mutations (or random variation) is the only relevant source? Or do you think that non random mutations also play in important role?. Epigenetics would be one of many expamples of non random mutations.

The answer is “obviously yes” there are many papers that independently have concluded that non random mutations play in important role………………but form previous comments you seem to deny this……….so which one is it?

It seems to be a valid question to me……..why won’t you answer?...........this is not a “gotcha” question

 

[leroy]

Neither, they are both idiotic misrepresentation of evolution.

mutations do not act on natural selection.

granted my mistake (typo)........ it is the other way arround . it is natrual selection acting upon random mutations

Whether mutations are the sole source or one of a number of mechanisms is also not terribly important, evolution theory has long since incorporated numerous sources but for the sake of simplicity, mutations has taken on the general meaning of genetic change

Yes, I agree “mutation” is an appropriate word for “genetic variation” … I am not an atheist, I don’t not play idiotic semantics.

The key word that you conveniently excluded is “random”………….. do you affirm that random mutations (or random variation) is the only relevant source? Or do you think that non random mutations also play in important role?. Epigenetics would be one of many expamples of non random mutations.

The answer is “obviously yes” there are many papers that independently have concluded that non random mutations play in important role………………but form previous comments you seem to deny this……….so which one is it?

It seems to be a valid question to me……..why won’t you answer?...........this is not a “gotcha” question

 

[YoursTrue]

This is pretty good, it is a reasonable outline of an experiment.
Take a population of flies Split it into two identical environments with the exception that one has a fly swatter that will kill some of them when they land on a target while the other has the target and flyswatter but it doesn't move.
Raise them in these environments for several, (probably many) generations.
Hypothesis, the flies in the active swatter environment will become less likely to land on the target than the control.


Guess what it will probably work given enough time and your HS teacher would smile because in your own roundabout way you have just demonstrated the S from RM+NS though technically it is AS in this case because your selection process is Artificial Selection in this case.

The best part is why it works which was hypothesized over 150 years ago by a guy named Darwin.

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated the effect of selective pressure on a population resulting in two behaviourally different subpopulations.
This is an excellent though tedious demonstration of a part of Darwin's theory.

For a more natural though less clearcut demonstration due to data difficulties see Peppered Moths in Industrial England.

"Up until the 1800s, most of the Peppered Moths in Britain were light in colour – a form called typica. However, in 1811 a dark form of the Peppered Moth, called carbonaria, was discovered in Britain for the first time. Over the course of the next 150 years, the dark form spread quickly in polluted areas of the countryside, while the light form remained more common in unpolluted areas.

Previous experiments had shown that the colour of British Peppered Moths was determined by a single gene. Individuals with one variant of the gene (allele) were light, and individuals with another allele were dark.

Observations​

Dark Peppered Moths were more common than light Peppered Moths in polluted areas of the countryside.

Light Peppered Moths remained more common than dark Peppered Moths in unpolluted areas of the countryside."

For the rest of the article.
Learning zone Oxford Peppered Moth

Evidence keeps piling up that Darwin had the basics correct.

note, no consciousness is required, because the flies already landed on random sides, just the swatted ones did not reproduce because they were dead and so the Random part of their behaviour already existed to be selected.

So the term natural selection is not accurate because the moths didn't select anything.

 

[Pogo]

So the term natural selection is not accurate because the moths didn't select anything.

No, that is not what natural selection refers to. Nature, birds in the moth case select by eating obvious moths.
Again, Evolution 101
Seriously

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that is not what natural selection refers to. Nature, birds in the moth case select by eating obvious moths.
Again, Evolution 101
Seriously

Natural selection implies choice.

 

[YoursTrue]

So by what physical mechanism does God create and manipulate things?

What choice? Who's choosing what?

Choice by selection. Whatever does the selecting. Naturally, of course. Some choices may not be good, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

So by what physical mechanism does God create and manipulate things?

If God wanted to explain beyond what is written He would have.