Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

Don't go down the rabbit hole man. It's a trap.

Remember what the doormouse said...

 

[Audie]

So all the crops, livestock and pets we're familiar with today have always existed, just as we see them now? Selective breeding is impossible, because reproduction is all RANDOM?

Bible sez the domestic animals
are a separate creation.

So there.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Remember what the doormouse said...

Nice.

How about a cover of that by my wife (vocals, bass), our friends Khanu (rhythm guitar) and Lance (percussion), and me (lead guitar)? My wife also did the video editing and uploaded over a 100 of our recordings (live performances) to the Internet this year:

 

[cladking]

Darwin resulted from consciousness as surely as any poultry.

Life isn't just about human sexuality and the birds; it's also the bees.

Bees pollinate flowers creating fruit for animals in a remarkable dance that drips honey and and propagates life. Without the bee and its dance with reality and the waggle dance it performs in the hive there can be no "Darwin" to ignore the many consciousnesses that make life possible and assures every individual's genes regress to a mean we call "species". Individuals too far from this mean can not reproduce. They are still conscious so they can still affect reality in myriad ways. They are still as fit and as worthy of natural selection as any other but they are too far off the mean.

Darwin removed individuals from species and species from life and then completed the trifecta by removing life from nature and reality. He created an abstraction that has no correspondence to life or reality.

Species change when many of the "too far from the mean" are the only surviving individuals who find they are not so far from the mean with a similar individual with which to mate. A new species is born from individuals who weren't exactly the original "species". You can call this sudden change in species by any term you want because words do not reflect reality. But the most apt terms used today would be "punctuated equilibrium" arising from bottlenecks. I would call it species changing through consciousness.

 

[Valjean]

No, it's not rocket science, it's a miracle.

Something has to survive and reproduce or there'd be no such thing as life. Therefore we can each define those that survive as the "most fit" "those selected by God", "that which is favored by the Flying Spaghetti Monster", or the "most conscious". Smoke 'em if ya gottem.

The ones that survive to pass their features on are the ones that "fit" better in their particular environmental situation. They are advantaged (selected) by the circumstances they chanced to be born into. No conscious choice or divine manipulation is necessary.

But believers in science are the holiest of all thous so we must all convert and cast off our heresies.

You misunderstand what science is, what it claims, and why it claims it, or what its domain is.
Science is not like religion. It's not believed because of high status or the status of practitioners. It's believed because of the tested evidence it's based on, as opposed scripture, doctrine, or authority.

 

[Valjean]

Darwin's theory of natural selection has logic to it based on natural potentials that push and pull on life. Science added a genetic randomizer variable that is not that well thought out. Random change will do more harm than good. Take a complex machine like an automobile and randomly move parts around. The odds are you will break it long before you improve it. It makes no conceptual sense.

And the unworkable alterations will be eliminated from the line. Those rare changes that work well will be included in future models.

To me a more complete and logical model of evolution would also include changes in natural selection itself, for any given environment. A forest fire can alter the environment and change who can and will be selected. This selection process will then gradually change as the forest grows back; larger animals appear.

The process will stay the same. The environment will change. New niches will appear, old ones will disappear. And new features will proliferate as the new niches are exploited. Eventually you'll get speciation, as populations specialize.

An Ice Age can change the rules for selection, in all environments, so collective biological change is needed. The current theory is more like unnecessary change as though selective pressures are always the same. Adaptation to changing environments adds the brain to the selection formula, by using the brain to alter, adapt or migrate to where the weather suits your clothes.

The rules aren't changed, just the features that confer fitness.
Selective pressures are always the same?
Selective criteria change, so different features confer fitness, and different features are then selected and increase in the population.
Both migration to an environment you're adapted to, and adaptation to new environments occurs.

If you look how/where various races of humans settled, at one point in time, this selection was mutual; good place to thrive and be selected. Places like China and India do a lot of propagating. The West tends to push population control, since they do not feel as selected. This could be due to the fast pace of change in free market materialist cultures that imports too much stuff.

I tend to believe there is cause and effect for genetic change. It may look random, but often it is about timing, where changes appear too early or tool late, relative to the changes in natural selection. It would be like moving to a new part of the country, to get a good job, and then the economy tanks. Now this once optimize change, is not optimize, and looks like a random mutation due to lack of selective advantages. If this had been done a year before, the story may have ended differently; selected to stay at the job.

Humans have largely removed themselves from the natural selective pressures other species experience. We change environment to suit our preferences. Other species must change themselves to suit their conditions.
Don't judge the rôle of natural selection in nature by human standards and experience.

 

[Valjean]

No, it's not rocket science, it's a miracle.

Something has to survive and reproduce or there'd be no such thing as life. Therefore we can each define those that survive as the "most fit" "those selected by God", "that which is favored by the Flying Spaghetti Monster", or the "most conscious". Smoke 'em if ya gottem.

Those that survive are not chosen by God. They're chosen by their environment. The individuals that fit better are reproductively advantaged, and the features conferring fitness are passed on more frequently than those that don't.
Easy-peasy. No supernatural intervention needed.

It's all just an assumption of the conclusion and "science" is right by definition which constitutes yet another miracle because metaphysics doesn't work this way.

Huh? Science is right by evidence testing.
Metaphysics? What does metaphysics have to do with science? Science can't study what it can't measure and test.

But believers in science are the holiest of all thous so we must all convert and cast off our heresies.

Please stop it. You're conflating science with religious faith.

 

[Valjean]

Bible sez the domestic animals
are a separate creation.

So there.

Of course. Chihuahuas, maize and Rhode Island reds always existed.

 

[Valjean]

Nice.

How about a cover of that by my wife (vocals, bass), our friends Khanu (rhythm guitar) and Lance (percussion), and me (lead guitar)? My wife also did the video editing and uploaded over a 100 of our recordings (live performances) to the Internet this year:

I didn't realize you were a rock star.

 

[Audie]

Of course. Chihuahuas, maize and Rhode Island reds always existed.

Don't forget all the varieties of bitter melon and eggplant.

 

[Valjean]

Don't forget all the varieties of bitter melon and eggplant.

Practically all of the crops and livestock we're familiar with; all selectively bred to manifest desired features. Few found in nature.
Selection works.

 

[leroy]

My approach is honest and factual. You seem angry and lashing out. Too much caffeine? Or sour grapes because I won't follow you down the rabbit hole?

I'm not going to play games with you or anyone else on here anymore.

What you are doing makes talking with you uninteresting to me. That's just the way it is. Have better fruit and you might get better results.

You wrongly accused me for not admitting mistakes, I corrected you and even offered you a quote of me admitting mistakes.

You , instead of apologizing for the false accusation, you wrote a whole bunch of unrelated words.

That in my opinion is dishonest………………….feel free to disagree

 

[leroy]

Because causes happen before effects.

Yes, because you say so

I don't require alternatives to point out absurdities.

If all possible alternatives have the same “problem” then it is obviously not a problem ……..

By definition of what causality is.

whos defintinon?

this is what I mean by causation....
Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect).

Causation | Secondary Keywords: Cause & Effect, Correlation, Causal Relationships | Britannica

Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect). According to David Hume, when we say of two types of object or event that “X causes Y” (e.g., fire causes smoke), we mean that (i) Xs are

www.britannica.com

Am i wrong just because I am not using your own personal favorite definition?...... well the above definition describes what I mean by “causation” if you think the definition is inappropriate, then please tell me what word should I use?

 

[leroy]

No.

I find it hard to believe that you don't understand this.

Is it "random" that the bear whose fur happens to blend in better with the background is more successful at hunting then the bear whose fur doesn't?

Yes according to my own personal definition of random, that would be an example of random………..therefore I win by your rules

 

[Subduction Zone]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes according to my own personal definition of random, that would be an example of random………..therefore I win by your rules

Please point out in his rules where he says that it is okay for people to make up their own bogus definitions.

 

[Bear Wild]

View attachment 93985

Another clear piece of evidence that we are all made from the same creative force of evolution. Although I do not have any archaeopteryx on my bird feeder I do have some blue jays that use their voices and arms quite clearly to let me know what they think of me and I understand them better than some of my neighbors.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes according to my own personal definition of random, that would be an example of random………..therefore I win by your rules

Except there is nothing purely random in evolution

Remember what the doormouse said...

Feed my head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice.

How about a cover of that by my wife (vocals, bass), our friends Khanu (rhythm guitar) and Lance (percussion), and me (lead guitar)? My wife also did the video editing and uploaded over a 100 of our recordings (live performances) to the Internet this year:

Not to mention a guest appearance by @Dan From Smithville

 

[Subduction Zone]

If God does not exist, then love, morality, and free will will all be chemical reactions in our systems and if that were true, the love you feel for your wife wouldn't even be true or even make sense.

It would be far more accurate for you to admit that you do not see how it could make any sense. As you wrote this the burden of proof is upon you to support your clam and I do not believe that you can support this.