Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

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.

And how do you know this? NO!!! I don't want to hear about peppered moths making a sudden transformation, I was to hear about any species anywhere that made a gradual transformation due to survival of the fittest. You NOT only do NOT have evidence of such a gradual transformation but you also do NOT have evidence it was caused by survival of the fittest. You will now dodge this question entirely and NOT present any experiment or evidence to show it.

I must hang around different people than you do because most of the scientific type people I know tend to agree with me and they arrived at their positions the same way; experiment. They have been paying attention to all the experiments going on in the last half century rather than picking and choosing what suits their beliefs. Things like chaos, plant communication, human consciousness as a function of belief, etc etc are real and subject to experimentation. Ever hear of single celled organisms that use their environment for memory, or crows that communicate? How about waggle dances that prove even insects know something about astronomy? It's believers in science who are out of step with the times.

Ignorance and superstition can't even make a pyramid builder strong.

No supernatural intervention needed.

Without the supernatural how can you believe in Darwin and be certain that change in species can be understood without so much as a definition for "consciousness"? Now you'll dodge this.

You have nothing, no evidence, and no experiment. Science has been changing because actual experiment does not fit 19th century beliefs.

Science is right by evidence testing.

For the 1000th time; NO. Science never makes any conclusions. Those positing "settled science" are lobbyists, politicians, and the faithful. There is no such thing. Science can never be right no matter how much evidence one believes he has and all theory derives from experiment and NOT evidence. No experiment supports Darwin's beliefs derived from false assumptions. He couldn't have been much more wrong but at least he had a valid excuse'; he was building on 19th century beliefs and science.

You're conflating science with religious faith.

Just as in my lifetime "skeptic" has come to mean "an individual who accepts what he has been told without question", science has become the world's leading religion.

Anyone who believes science is evidence based is not only doing it wrong but he doesn't even know the meaning of "metaphysics" and is more than half a century out of date with experiment and true science.

 

[John53]

I confess to being ignorant of metaphysics and all the other types of philosophy. And I don't care.

 

[Pogo]

You have nothing, no evidence, and no experiment. Science has been changing because actual experiment does not fit 19th century beliefs.

That is nice, you say you have experiments etc. where can we find this information such that we can follow it to change our position? Is it something that can be communicated or do we just have to feel it?

 

[Pogo]

I confess to being ignorant of metaphysics and all the other types of philosophy. And I don't care.

They never did seem the same in the light of day,

 

[shunyadragon]

I confess to being ignorant of metaphysics and all the other types of philosophy. And I don't care.

To acquire knowledge is to care

 

[cladking]

That is nice, you say you have experiments etc. where can we find this information such that we can follow it to change our position? Is it something that can be communicated or do we just have to feel it?

I've cited it several times but it is apparently invisible to Darwinists. I'm about my own experiments not other peoples' but fear not, you can google it up yourself quite easily. If you have trouble I can help.

ALL experiments are relevant including those that show we see what we believe. Even Darwin and each of his followers as well as all those who disagree with him see what they believe. Homo omnisciencis.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've cited it several times but it is apparently invisible to Darwinists. I'm about my own experiments not other peoples' but fear not, you can google it up yourself quite easily. If you have trouble I can help.

ALL experiments are relevant including those that show we see what we believe. Even Darwin and each of his followers as well as all those who disagree with him see what they believe. Homo omnisciencis.

Your invisible experiments!?!?!?!

 

[leroy]

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

Strawman

I am not accusing @TagliatelliMonster for making up bogus definitions, I grant that in some context his defection of “causality” could be valid …………… (just like my definition of random)

The issue is that all words have many definitions….you don’t get to score points in a debate just because your opponent is using a different definition than you …………… you score points by refuting or proving the actual point



--some context---

Considering this defintion

Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect).


I argued that the universe (the physical world) had a cause


You might have 100 objections to that claim, who knows…………..all I am saying is that the objection “but i define cause differently” Is not a valid objection………..do you agree? Yes!!!....will you correct your friend tag? NO………why ? because you are not an honest interlocutor

 

[shunyadragon]

And how do you know this? NO!!! I don't want to hear about peppered moths making a sudden transformation, I was to hear about any species anywhere that made a gradual transformation due to survival of the fittest. You NOT only do NOT have evidence of such a gradual transformation but you also do NOT have evidence it was caused by survival of the fittest. You will now dodge this question entirely and NOT present any experiment or evidence to show it.

I must hang around different people than you do because most of the scientific type people I know tend to agree with me and they arrived at their positions the same way; experiment. They have been paying attention to all the experiments going on in the last half century rather than picking and choosing what suits their beliefs. Things like chaos, plant communication, human consciousness as a function of belief, etc etc are real and subject to experimentation. Ever hear of single celled organisms that use their environment for memory, or crows that communicate? How about waggle dances that prove even insects know something about astronomy? It's believers in science who are out of step with the times.

Ignorance and superstition can't even make a pyramid builder strong.



Without the supernatural how can you believe in Darwin and be certain that change in species can be understood without so much as a definition for "consciousness"? Now you'll dodge this.

We have more than adequate definition and knowledge of the nature of consciousness, but you choose to ignore it.

You have nothing, no evidence, and no experiment. Science has been changing because actual experiment does not fit 19th century beliefs.

True nineteenth century before Darwin doe not fit the evidence.

For the 1000th time; NO. Science never makes any conclusions. Those positing "settled science" are lobbyists, politicians, and the faithful. There is no such thing. Science can never be right no matter how much evidence one believes he has and all theory derives from experiment and NOT evidence. No experiment supports Darwin's beliefs derived from false assumptions. He couldn't have been much more wrong but at least he had a valid excuse'; he was building on 19th century beliefs and science.

Science never posits "settle science." The rest is reworked combative hogwash from your previous posts.

Just as in my lifetime "skeptic" has come to mean "an individual who accepts what he has been told without question", science has become the world's leading religion.

That is not the definition of skeptic. Your view is not that of a skeptic. It is the stoic intransigent denial of knowledge

Anyone who believes science is evidence based is not only doing it wrong but he doesn't even know the meaning of "metaphysics" and is more than half a century out of date with experiment and true science.

It remains you stoicly live in the 15th century. Lucretius had more philosophical insight into reality than you do 0ver 2000 years ago.

 

[shunyadragon]

Strawman

I am not accusing @TagliatelliMonster for making up bogus definitions, I grant that in some context his defection of “causality” could be valid …………… (just like my definition of random)

The issue is that all words have many definitions….you don’t get to score points in a debate just because your opponent is using a different definition than you …………… you score points by refuting or proving the actual point



--some context---

Considering this defintion

Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect).


I argued that the universe (the physical world) had a cause

Virtually everyone believes the universe has a cause to some it is God or Gods, others it is simply the Laws of Nature

You might have 100 objections to that claim, who knows…………..all I am saying is that the objection “but i define cause differently” Is not a valid objection………..do you agree? Yes!!!....will you correct your friend tag? NO………why ? because you are not an honest interlocutor

I believe God Created the Natural Laws, and our physical existence came about naturally, Even though Einstein stated it metaphorically, I do believe the dice of nature are loaded, and physical nature of our physical existence is not random by definition.

 

[gnostic]

Anyone who believes science is evidence based is not only doing it wrong but he doesn't even know the meaning of "metaphysics" and is more than half a century out of date with experiment and true science.

I confess to being ignorant of metaphysics and all the other types of philosophy. And I don't care.

Metaphysics is a philosophy, not science.

One of the things, Metaphysics doesn’t do, it is experiments.

So when @cladking is yapping away that science required to do experiments, he completely ignored the fact that experiments are never supported by Metaphysics, and experiments are never used in Metaphysics.

Metaphysics has nothing to do with empirical knowledge. Besides that, Metaphysics use more on intuition than logic.

The only experiments required in Metaphysics, is “thought experiment”, thought experiment isn’t a real experiment. Metaphysicians just rely on person’s abilities to be persuasive with their rhetoric, hence is all talks, with no substances, which would mean Metaphysics isn’t about experiment at all. Metaphysicians are no better than used-car or insurance salespersons.

personally, I find Metaphysics to be both outdated and overrated philosophy.

 

[leroy]

Virtually everyone believes the universe has a cause to some it is God or Gods, others it is simply the Laws of Nature

I believe God Created the Natural Laws, and our physical existence came about naturally, Even though Einstein stated it metaphorically, I do believe the dice of nature are loaded, and physical nature of our physical existence is not random by definition.

but @TagliatelliMonster cliaims With certainty, that your believes are nonsense and incoherent…………be patient by tomorrow you will get his brilliant arguments for why he thinks your believes are nonsensical

Virtually everyone believes the universe has a cause

well then virtually everybody (except for tag) is wrong

 

[gnostic]

Just how many times, must it be pointed out to *staff edit* creationists that Natural Selection isn’t random, before they realise these tiresome assumptions are not only incorrect, they are untenable and intellectually dishonest?

They also don’t seem capable of understanding that mutations are not necessary for Natural Selection to occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strawman

I am not accusing @TagliatelliMonster for making up bogus definitions, I grant that in some context his defection of “causality” could be valid …………… (just like my definition of random)

The issue is that all words have many definitions….you don’t get to score points in a debate just because your opponent is using a different definition than you …………… you score points by refuting or proving the actual point



--some context---

Considering this defintion

Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect).


I argued that the universe (the physical world) had a cause


You might have 100 objections to that claim, who knows…………..all I am saying is that the objection “but i define cause differently” Is not a valid objection………..do you agree? Yes!!!....will you correct your friend tag? NO………why ? because you are not an honest interlocutor

Such a pity. You still do not know what a strawman argument is. Actually it is a twofer. You also had a reading comprehension fail in an incredibly short and clear post.

 

[shunyadragon]

but @TagliatelliMonster cliaims With certainty, that your believes are nonsense and incoherent…………be patient by tomorrow you will get his brilliant arguments for why he thinks your believes are nonsensical

but . . . No one can believe with certainty. Even science has tenuous knowledge, but reliable to the extent humans can falsify theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence. If nature is random we could not do this.

well then virtually everybody (except for tag) is wrong

Considering the fallible nature of humanity everyone is likely wrong in one way or another,

 

[YoursTrue]

So the theorists say -- they say it's not random by selection -- all conjecture as to "evolution."

 

[YoursTrue]

Such a pity. You still do not know what a strawman argument is. Actually it is a twofer. You also had a reading comprehension fail in an incredibly short and clear post.

So sorry, but strawman has nothing to do with it. Either fish came out of the water to be land animals by "natural selection" or they did not. And there is absolutely no verification of "natural selection..." of the fish to apes. Recognizing that many will stick to the assumption that's how it works (natural selection), that's how it's going to be for some.

 

[shunyadragon]

Stochastic refers to the property of being well-described by a random probability distribution. This does not apply to evolution . Aleatory actions made by chance with its etymology of alea Latin for dice. Again this does not apply to evolution which is not purely random. Even chaos is not purely random. Evolution has many ways to influence outcome that is not purely random. What is clearly true is that evolution is an immanent property of nature therefor cannot be influenced by any supernatural being.

I believe nature is not in reality random at all. The cause and effect outcomes of the nature of our physical existence is fractal in nature as described by Chaos Theory. It is a predictable pattern that can be objectively described taking into consideration the number of variables. Weather prediction is an example of modeling cause and effect outcomes based on Chaos Theory. The natural predictable chaos pattern of the outcomes of cause and effect events should not be described as random.

The only thing that may be considered truly random is the timing outcome of individual cause and effects with the limits of the natural processes that determine th limits. For example it is timing of the radioactive decay one atom is random, but the over all decay of the sample of the radioactive mineral follows a predictable pattern.

I consider abiogenesis and evolution to be a very environmental driven process where the diversity of outcomes is fractal in nature, In part this is demonstrated by the life forms are often very similar but not relate d based on environment they evolved in called convergent evolution.

All maple leaves are not alike, but all Maple leaves are Maple leaves.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just how many times, must it be pointed out to @leroy, @YoursTrue and other science illiterate creationists that Natural Selection isn’t random, before they realise these tiresome assumptions are not only incorrect, they are untenable and intellectually dishonest?

They also don’t seem capable of understanding that mutations are not necessary for Natural Selection to occur.

Mutations simply exist collectively as part of the genetic diversity of a population in the natural process of life and evolution. Mutations do not cause anything in and of themselves and follow natural cause and effect outcomes and result in the genetic diversity. This process is not random, but predictable. It is a natural property of mutations that they are not determined in the process to be negative, neutral or positive in terms of Natural Selection of a given population. Natural Selection determines whether mutations have a negative, positive of neutral effect on the outcome. Natural Selection is dependent on the over all genetic diversity of the population and the changing environment. If the population lacks size, diversity or the environment changes suddenly the population often perishes.

The extinction of the Passenger Pigeon is an example.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ah, what an interesting comment:
"The precise transmission of genetic information from one generation to the next is fundamental to life.
Most of the time, this process unfolds with remarkable accuracy, but when it goes awry, mutations can arise—some of them beneficial, some of them inconsequential, and some of them causing malfunction and disease.
Yet, precisely where and how heritable genetic mutations tend to arise in humans has remained largely unknown."
(Go figure...)

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/origins-mutation