Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know about scientific data.

What makes you say that? This is another accusation of yours that bears the burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Examples please, especially in terms of your questioning colloquial verbiage which is generally allowed until it becomes obvious that the poster really doesn't understand. Misunderstandings of colloquial verbiage are a major source of misunderstandings though the dichotomy does not appear to be Christian-atheist but a subset of Christians.

I feel the same way. If anything it seems to be the other way around.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

..you words


You are wrongly implying that I don’t admit errors............given that the accusation is false, an apology is expected

It was an assessment based on the evidence. It wasn't false. You aren't owed an apology. Get over it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Until you demonstrate this sudden change in a way that is incompatible with current theory this is at best a strawman and more likely just absurd.

I have never even seen an attempt made to demonstrate the notion that all change in all living things is sudden. I don't expect to see it supported, since the evidence falsifies the claim. It has been falsified on here a number of times.

The rest of this is a diatribe against the anti-science that pervades much of the religious subculture and unfortunately has become popular in political circles. It is not science as anyone who is familiar with the subject would claim.

You are arguing against science, not how it is practiced but against a misrepresentation that seems all too common in the general parlance to the point that we have people arguing that if we don't know everything, we don't know anything and conclusions are the final be all and end all.

Ultimately, you are arguing against a modern redefinition that Burtt would have agreed with in his desire to maintain the validity of metaphysics as a serious field of study.
IMHO

I generally agree with you.

And I won't go into disagreements on Egyptology or whether high energy physics has stalled especially since the discovery of the Higg's boson though that the standard model is incomplete is not even questionable.

All previous and continued reference to Egyptology is another rabbit hole in my opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sudden, on what scale?

Compared to star formation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was an assessment based on the evidence. It wasn't false. You aren't owed an apology. Get over it.

I was reading through some of those that quoted me negatively and those that agreed with those negative quotes. Given the sources, it should be amusing, but it isn't. I suppose it is an example of the enemy of my enemy is my friend and a continuation of let's pile on the "not a true Christian" as they see it I think.

I said to @leroy, "You do not seem to be able to admit error, I have watched you go to extraordinary effort to divert and avoid admitting errors and personal ignorance of the topics and discussion." What I said was my assessment of the evidence. Not seeming to be able to admit errors does not in any way mean, state, or support that errors are not admitted to by a person. A person could admit some errors and still not seem able to admit them in general. That is what I see happening. I did not say, as I was recently accused of saying, "he could not admit errors". It is clear from my posts that I never made that statement.

I shouldn't have to explain myself to people that claim the high moral ground for themselves, seem to hold pretensions of being error-free and all knowing and like to pick on others that don't agree with them. But I find I can't let that sort of nonsense go unanswered.

This should be the end of this nonsense surrounding what I said. I believe it was an accurate assessment based on the evidence and was not an accusation. It certainly was not the twisted version used to further accuse me. But I do recognize that some seem to support that way of doing things, sadly.

The only apologies warranted are apologies to me. Especially from the person that purposefully twisted what I said into a straw man.

 

[Pogo]

I have never even seen an attempt made to demonstrate the notion that all change in all living things is sudden. I don't expect to see it supported, since the evidence falsifies the claim. It has been falsified on here a number of times.

I generally agree with you.

All previous and continued reference to Egyptology is another rabbit hole in my opinion.

Well I haven't been here long enough to witness a rubble pyramid being built, so I will take your word for it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well I haven't been here long enough to witness a rubble pyramid being built, so I will take your word for it.

I've been here long enough to know that all you will get are claims that terms were defined, explanations were provided, evidence was provided, questions were answered, references were provided and claims were demonstrated without ever seeing any of that happen.

I often wonder if it there is some sort of confusion or failure to understand and that merely responding with anything is seen as equivalent to providing all those things that are repeatedly requested to no obvious avail.

The problem is that the rubble that I've seen isn't good enough to build with.

 

[Pogo]

I've been here long enough to know that all you will get are claims that terms were defined, explanations were provided, evidence was provided, questions were answered, references were provided and claims were demonstrated without ever seeing any of that happen.

I often wonder if it there is some sort of confusion or failure to understand and that merely responding with anything is seen as equivalent to providing all those things that are repeatedly requested to no obvious avail.

The problem is that the rubble that I've seen isn't good enough to build with.

Yes, I have noticed that and even researching the claims for others does not engender further discussion but only more claims.

On that note, I will claim that it doesn't matter what sort of material you pile up, if you pile enough of it up it will form a pyramid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I have noticed that and even researching the claims for others does not engender further discussion but only more claims.

Pretty much. If you put something solid down, it doesn't stop the flow of claims or draw meaningful consideration, it just causes the claims to divert around that evidence as if it isn't there.

On that note, I will claim that it doesn't matter what sort of material you pile up, if you pile enough of it up it will form a pyramid.

I can speculate on the material that is going into the pyramids I see being built.

 

[YoursTrue]

What makes you say that? This is another accusation of yours that bears the burden of proof.

the posts of yours and some others demonstrate it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just to sum up some of the claims regarding science, in particular the theory of evolution.

1. The assumptions of the theory of evolution have not been listed nor have they been shown to be wrong in any way. The claim that they are is not evidence that they are. The claim is meaningless without listing the assumptions, explaining how they are wrong and providing the support of evidence for the claim and explanation. These things have never been done on any thread where the claim against the assumptions has been made.

2. The claim that all change in all living things has been falsified numerous times. Enzymatic activity can occur in less than a second. Seed germination can happen in minutes to days. The lifespan of living things varies from days to thousands of years. These things do not all occur suddenly.

3. The claim that there is no evidence for evolution or for natural selection has been falsified numerous times.
https://hoekstra.oeb.harvard.edu/files/hoekstra/files/barrett2019sci.pdf

4. Speciation does not occur, because someone decided to kill a few flies.

 

[YoursTrue]

In all honesty, the hyper evangelical atheists in this very forum don't even spend a few minutes to do the research on definitions in the beginning. In my opinion, after making a false definition based on colloquial verbiage they don't like to go back and stand corrected. So there is a necessity to stay with it out of pride. It's not that they necessarily change definitions right at the beginning. Most of the missionaries are simply unaware.

The ongoing heralding of some atheists here that are upholding scientific claims in the form of conclusions despite the fact so many are presumptions + those that claim to believe in God but won't offer reasons why has been very educational.

 

[Valjean]

Like I said maybe it's magnetism that starts good or bad mutations...? you use the word attraction --

Please stop pretending you don't understand. I wasn't talking about mutations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More of the pile on a Christian cuz he just aint no true Christian like me. Very sad.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More of the pile on a Christian cuz he just aint no true Christian like me. Very sad.

And there will never be any apology for that either.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please stop pretending you don't understand. I wasn't talking about mutations.

You weren't? I don't expect you to explain what you were talking about if you were not talking about mutations.

 

[Valjean]

This Harvard.edu website states,

“Most of the time, this process [the transmission of genetic material] 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.”

How misleading! (As if its about 1/3 for each category.)

When it goes awry, the vast majority (of mutations) cause malfunctions & disease, and rarely are any beneficial.

If the mutations are “inconsequential”, then there’s nothing awry!

Who wrote this, Doogie Howser?
And peer-reviewed by the Three Stooges?

And natural selection generally selects beneficial mutations, and eliminates harmful ones.
Any links to the percentages of beneficial, neutral and harmful mutations?

 

[YoursTrue]

So sad that people can't/won't explain their positions on things and then divert by insults and point fingers from the pile or bulwark. So glad to have seen this, although I do feel sorry about it but it is sooo helpful and explanatory to see this. Thanks, guys! If you are guys. If you are not, thanks whoever you are or claim to be. Fishy stuff...

 

[YoursTrue]

And natural selection generally selects beneficial mutations, and eliminates harmful ones.
Any links to the percentages of beneficial, neutral and harmful mutations?

Generally selects beneficial mutations? Really? Your assertion needs to have verification from something other than your words there.