Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[blü 2]

I think you're asking me to show progress can't occur in science because even Peers always disagree.

I DO believe there is continuing progress in science DESPITE the fact that peers never agree and their models each differ. I believe progress comes DESPITE the fact every scientist has yet to have his own funeral. I believe progress comes whether or not ANY scientist can correctly predict the effect of a given event.

The effect of any individual being wrong is insignificant to human progress except to the degree he causes death, destruction, and mayhem. Every error is self correcting in the long run. Even massive errors like a belief in survival of the fittest will eventually fall by the wayside and our species will heal and move on.

The inability to see anomalies is universal. Seeing one is the exception for everyone. Even homo sapiens missed most of them because they could only see what they knew so anomalies appeared to them as a hole in their perception rather than a hole in their belief system.

For my next trick I'll prove the sky is blue. Then every time I refer to the sky I'll type out a couple paragraph explanation for why it's blue. Each of my posts will contain an infinite number of words that answer every question and leaves nothing to misunderstanding.

Why do so many believing I am damning science? Over and over i say it's the only game in town but apparently if you disagree with doctrine, any bit of what is perceived as doctrine, you become a confused and superstitious religious zealot who doesn't need argument or logic but rather exorcism.

I asked you (twice) to provide a contemporary example by a reputable scientist that was of any particular significance.

And all you respond with is the blather above.

A real contemporary example, please.

If there are no such examples of significance, perhaps instead of asserting that there are, you might learn something instead.

That would be progress.

 

[blü 2]

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

God, as you know, never appears, never says, never does.

Maybe that's why [his] fan base is shrinking, eh?

 

[cladking]

God, as you know, never appears, never says, never does.

Maybe that's why [his] fan base is shrinking, eh?

No.

It's the same thing that people do in mistaking thought for knowledge. Those who believe in science are convincing people that technology is the result of understanding. Even the ancient Egyptians used counterweights without understanding the nature of weight or the gravity that causes it. Come to think f it we're in the exact same boat. We don't understand gravity either. We measure its effects just like the pyramid builders with balance scales and the like.

Technology is not understanding.

 

[cladking]

A real contemporary example, please.

Of what point is an example? That it exists universally is sufficient to the point.

 

[Audie]

A universe from nothing is only one of several (i know of 32) hypothesis for how the bb happened. As far as i know only 2 suggest a universe from nothing.

Of course they are scientific hypothesis, not atheistic hypothesis so once again you are deliberately misrepresenting atheism.

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Nothing more, nothing less, anything else you add to that simply shows your ignorance of atheism. And i feel sorry that a misunderstanding of fact can generate so much hatred.

I really do wonder how deliberate misrepresentations stack up with the teachings of your bible?

Now now, you have never seen any other
type of argument in this context- there is
no other- so aren't you a lil unfair to deprive
someone that widow's mite?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I suppose it is a reasonable outline for middle school science fair experiment.

It doesn't suggest a design by someone with a sound species concept or understanding of speciation given the initial expectation is to select for a single trait and expect speciation as a result.

The species of fly would have to be determined and then the natural population would have to be monitored to see if the behavior isn't already in the population.

I don't even begin to understand how someone isn't aware that artificial selection proceeds much faster than natural selection or that breeders do this all the time and do not produce new species as a result. I get the impression that the expectation is much as this example. A 6 foot husband and a 5 foot 10 inch wife produce a son that is 6 foot 8 and expect that the son is new species. That doesn't suggest someone with much knowledge of flies, biology, genetics, speciation or experiments created the original design.

I agree with your assessment that the anticipated result would be subpopulations based on the behavioral trait if it was something where the means could be found to select for the trait artificially.

Since flies already land on the undersurface of structures (tables, ceilings, chairs, etc.) I think your modification makes sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I'm asking you to provide a contemporary example by a reputable scientist that was of any particular significance.

I asked you for this because I think the point you're making is trivial, and I'm inviting you to correct me by showing a real and substantial example within modern science.

I wonder how long this will go on with the none-responses.

If you were talking to a scientist, you would have gotten what you are requesting shortly after requesting it.

 

[blü 2]

No.

Yes.

God never appears, never says, never does. If you disagree, a video of a TV interview where [he] appears, speaks and acts would be an interesting start ─ though of course in this AI era we'd need to get [him] into the lab at some point to verify the claims about [him].

Of what point is an example?

The kind of example I'm asking you for, contemporary, reputable, significant, might show you're talking about a real and relevant problem and not just wandering around in the realms of your imagination.

If you don't have such an example ─ and by now it certainly looks like you don't ─ then please just say so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Oddly, that is even difficult for some biologists to understand. There is no entity choosing of course. As you I'm sure are no doubt aware, that is a metaphor for the action of the environment on the population where those that have a trait imparting a greater chance of survival, survive at a statistically higher rate than those without the trait or with a lesser expression of the trait.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I'm sure. Otherwise no trip down the rabbit hole arguing back an forth over some valid distinction that you don't seem to want to see.

You have a good day now you hear.

 

[Valjean]

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

The organisms don't select. The environment does.

 

[Valjean]

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

I asked for mechanism, and choice by selection is just saying "choice by choice."

 

[Valjean]

Natural selection implies choice.

Not intentional choice. A sieve can separate large and small particles, but there is no "choice" involved.

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

So as usual. No evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you just can't have that discussion with many here.

It would be ok discussing it with the deniers, but they don't listen to what I have to say and harp on some irrelevant triviality or some confused belief about the science. And correct, no matter what you say or what source you post, they will never recognize it.

As we've agreed, when interacting with such people, there has to be another purpose, or why bother?

We may share an interest in the same things, I just lose patients faster I think. The disrespect rubs me wrong and I grow annoyed. Switching to correction mode and reading what others are dealing with and seeing how it goes for them brings the interest back.

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

I told you I was done with this discussion. It's not interesting to me any longer since you won't cooperate. I wasn't going to respond to your post until I found two others addressed to me.

Hint: if you enjoy discussions with others, you'll need to consider what's in it for them. It can't be only what you want to write. Some of it needs to be what they want you to address - to discuss what interests them, too. You steadfastly refused to do that.

This is very interesting point. I'll tell you that my opinion is that all that we have seen is done for self-reinforcement and to sustain a feeling of superior knowledge and understanding.

I have no doubt that if you or some of the other serious participants here were to claim a language existed 40,000 years ago, you would provide the evidence and reasoning that lead you to that conclusion. If you made a claim that some region of the brain did not exist at the time and it was a primitive language of only few thousand words, you would again provide the evidence of the comparisons between 40,000 year old brains and modern brains showing the differences and that the region was missing from the ancient brains. I'm not aware of the existence of human brains dating to that time or any imaging work done on them to show differences with modern brains. I don't know of any examples of 40,000 year old language. Some symbols scratched on cave walls may suggest a language, but certainly one cannot be deciphered from them or fully characterized and compared to modern language. If that evidence exists it has never been presented.

The repetition of the claims and the dismissal of questions and feedback renders the subject uninteresting and kills further discourse.

I'm seeing it happen to you and to others that merely ask for examples or evidence or anything that would show that what is repeated is more than just a syncretic belief or what amounts science fan fiction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mutation is not an appropriate word for genetic variation. A mutation is a change in the DNA sequences of living things. As @Pogo has said, it is has become a catchall phrase for genetic change as used by the general public. While in science, the definition follows the one provided.

Genetic variation describes all the differences in the genomes of a population. That variation does not necessarily exist solely due to mutation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not intentional choice. A sieve can separate large and small particles, but there is no "choice" involved.

A sieve or screen is a good metaphor for selection.

So as usual. No evidence.

Well, of course.

 

[Pogo]

Oddly, that is even difficult for some biologists to understand. There is no entity choosing of course. As you I'm sure are no doubt aware, that is a metaphor for the action of the environment on the population where those that have a trait imparting a greater chance of survival, survive at a statistically higher rate than those without the trait or with a lesser expression of the trait.

I'm refraining from answering this question from a person who claims to understand evolution but just doesn't see the evidence as any thing but a deliberate troll. I don't feel like getting dinged again for not taking the question appropriately seriously.
That said, what is it about those who wear their religion so blatantly on their sleeves that they seem the least honest and most unlikable. I am certainly not interested in worshiping their god.
.
Peace.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm refraining from answering this question from a person who claims to understand evolution but just doesn't see the evidence as any thing but a deliberate troll. I don't feel like getting dinged again for not taking the question appropriately seriously.
That said, what is it about those who wear their religion so blatantly on their sleeves that they seem the least honest and most unlikable. I am certainly not interested in worshiping their god.
.
Peace.

I don't know the answer to that. Allegedly, we worship the same God, but clearly do it in decidedly different ways with much different attitudes. I'm a lot less up in myself about it I think. Since the discussion is about science and I have no evidence of anything God did, I stick with the science. I don't demand or take a literal view of Genesis. If I did, I'd be left with the fact of all the evidence that doesn't fit the Genesis narrative and have to conclude that God either created the evidence for unknown, seemingly mendacious reasons or that God allowed it created for much the same reason. On top of that, I feel like I'd have to lie to myself and others to ignore it if I chose to go that way. That's a no no according to scripture.

My conclusion is that we don't really understand and interpret the Bible as well as some think or claim they do.

I have to go along with @It Aint Necessarily So and see the sort of thinking and activity in support of belief as interesting and worth knowing the patterns and, if really, really lucky, discovering a root cause. Or at least coming to understand how things got to be where they are.

It does seem that certain types of people go different directions on the same material. This is obvious with science, religion, politics, other philosophy. Education always seems to be a big factor, but not the only one.

It is a conundrum.

 

[Pogo]

The organisms don't select. The environment does.

Having read the inadvertent link to one of the original source documents that this poster is getting their understanding from, i'm not surprised at the level of understanding they demonstrate when they claim they understand evolution, they just don't agree with it.

DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution

Recent Scientific Discoveries Prove Apes Could Not Have Evolved Into Humans

darwinconspiracy.com

The enlightenment is over and we are into the age of personal discernment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Having read the inadvertent link to one of the original source documents that this poster is getting their understanding from, i'm not surprised at the level of understanding they demonstrate when they claim they understand evolution, they just don't agree with it.

DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution

Recent Scientific Discoveries Prove Apes Could Not Have Evolved Into Humans

darwinconspiracy.com

The enlightenment is over and we are into the age of personal discernment.

Unfortunately. And that discernment is a weak flashlight in the dark from what I have seen.