Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Subduction Zone]

the posts of yours and some others demonstrate it.

It really does not. You need to do sooooooo much better. Haven't you noticed that everyone else has pointed out that you do exactly what I have been accusing you of for years now?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It see a lot of fishy stuff here. So sad. Some people can persecute without any reservation I guess.

In a discussion of science, the beliefs of the participants is irrelevant. What is relevant is the knowledge, evidence and questions about science. Battering a person continually, making snide, passive aggressive and I think intentionally hurtful references does not make it relevant or relieve those doing it of responsibility for their actions.

When someone is asking specific questions, say about demon possession, making no claims, their beliefs have no bearing on the ability or more precisely, the failure to answer among the people doing their best to avoid those questions by turning it into a discussion about what the person asking the questions believes. Not something I would expect from people claiming they are Christian. In my view, I would consider that childish, spiteful and disingenuous. I have seen nothing to change my mind on that and show me I am wrong for feeling that way.

Is there to be any actual questions or points relevant to the discussion of science here or is it just to be more passive aggression, nonsense and what I think amounts to pigeon chess?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It really does not. You need to do sooooooo much better. Haven't you noticed that everyone else has pointed out that you do exactly what I have been accusing you of for years now?

I've noticed that people that believe they are correct no matter how unreasonable the evidence shows that to be, are often unable to recognize those failures in themselves and appear to often project those flaws onto others.

I far one, would love it if people so inclined found the courage and the strength to open their minds and try to come up with the best information and reasoned objections based on that information rather than logical fallacies and irrelevant attacks on others.

If they understand all of this science at the level they claim, then none of this nonsense should be necessary. Rejection wouldn't need to be based on logical fallacies or dubious, highly questionable and obscure sources that have little or nothing to do with the science. If all the evidence is with them, why can't they make sound arguments that are significant and with thoughtful impact? Why repeat the same things over and over and over even when those things repeated have been previously and widely refuted?

 

[YoursTrue]

The fishy stuff is why some people go to church here but refuse to say why. And then go off on tangents about being persecuted. And more refuse to offer "scientific" explanations for their retorts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fishy stuff is why some people go to church here but refuse to say why. And then go off on tangents about being persecuted. And more refuse to offer "scientific" explanations for their retorts.

Religion can be a very private matter for some people. And people that appear to be far worse than disingenuous are the last people that have the right to demand an answer when it comes to something as personal as that.

I do not doubt that you are a Christian, even though you seem to be more than willing to call God a liar, why would you doubt others?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now it is just personal attack. I would recommend people read the rules and abide by their own claimed religious beliefs and past statements about how others have been so hard on them.

I recommend that this conversation is becoming off topic and should return to the topic.

Is it logically sound to claim that review of the evidence of evolution is found to be too incredible to a person and thus is rejected?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Religion can be a very private matter for some people. And people that appear to be far worse than disingenuous are the last people that have the right to demand an answer when it comes to something as personal as that.

I do not doubt that you are a Christian, even though you seem to be more than willing to call God a liar, why would you doubt others?

In a quick aside, I find it interesting that I have largely confined myself to correcting the flawed information and claims of those professing full understanding of this science, but rejecting it for reasons outside of science. Apparently, that has been enough to draw some less than flattering attention and comments of an increasingly personal nature.

Neither my religious views nor those of anyone else have anything to do with the evidence or the conclusions that are arrived at here though a knowledge and understanding of the science. To me, it seems like sour grapes, a way to divert from the conversation and to mark others as the enemy. Much like the application of these nameless, faceless Peers is used.

The presence of Christians that accept science seems to be a personal affront here that must be dealt with an harshly. That isn't relevant in a science discussion either. It makes these debates and discussions uninteresting. Who are some to discuss and debate with if they make the threads so uninteresting no one else wants to be here?

 

[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.

I notice that I presented a significant reference here that soundly refutes the claim that there is no evidence for natural selection and not one comment about it from those making such claims. Rather, the comments have been isolated to personal insults and snide remarks to me. That tells me a lot. It certainly is fishy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The claim has been repeated that there is no evidence for evolution. In doing a search of the literature using the term "evidence of evolution", there were 3.27 million hits in 0.08 seconds. Hardly indicative of a theory without evidence.

Here is a wee sampling.

Osawa, S., Jukes, T.H., Watanabe, K. and Muto, A., 1992. Recent evidence for evolution of the genetic code. Microbiological reviews, 56(1), pp.229-264.

Buonavoglia, C., Martella, V., Pratelli, A., Tempesta, M., Cavalli, A., Buonavoglia, D., Bozzo, G., Elia, G., Decaro, N. and Carmichael, L., 2001. Evidence for evolution of canine parvovirus type 2 in Italy. Journal of general virology, 82(12), pp.3021-3025.

Doebley, J., 1990. Molecular evidence and the evolution of maize. Economic Botany, 44(Suppl 3), pp.6-27.

Xiong, J., Fischer, W.M., Inoue, K., Nakahara, M. and Bauer, C.E., 2000. Molecular evidence for the early evolution of photosynthesis. science, 289(5485), pp.1724-1730.

Boel, E., Vuust, J., Norris, F., Norris, K., Wind, A., Rehfeld, J.F. and Marcker, K.A., 1983. Molecular cloning of human gastrin cDNA: evidence for evolution of gastrin by gene duplication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 80(10), pp.2866-2869.

Twiddy, S.S., Woelk, C.H. and Holmes, E.C., 2002. Phylogenetic evidence for adaptive evolution of dengue viruses in nature. Journal of General Virology, 83(7), pp.1679-1689.

Wilson, A.C., Sarich, V.M. and Maxson, L.R., 1974. The importance of gene rearrangement in evolution: evidence from studies on rates of chromosomal, protein, and anatomical evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 71(8), pp.3028-3030.

Wolpoff, M.H., Wu, X. and Thorne, A.G., 1984. Modern Homo sapiens origins: a general theory of hominid evolution involving the fossil evidence from East Asia. The origins of modern humans: a world survey of the fossil evidence, 6, pp.411-483.

Marzke, M.W. and Marzke, R.F., 2000. Evolution of the human hand: approaches to acquiring, analysing and interpreting the anatomical evidence. The Journal of Anatomy, 197(1), pp.121-140.

Clements, D.R. and Jones, V.L., 2021. Rapid evolution of invasive weeds under climate change: present evidence and future research needs. Frontiers in Agronomy, 3, p.664034.

Fan, Y., O'Grady, P., Yoshimizu, M., Ponlawat, A., Kaufman, P.E. and Scott, J.G., 2020. Evidence for both sequential mutations and recombination in the evolution of kdr alleles in Aedes aegypti. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 14(4), p.e0008154.

Langleib, M., Calvelo, J., Costábile, A., Castillo, E., Tort, J.F., Hoffmann, F.G., Protasio, A.V., Koziol, U. and Iriarte, A., 2024. Evolutionary analysis of species-specific duplications in flatworm genomes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, p.108141.

Ye, N., Han, W., Toseland, A., Wang, Y., Fan, X., Xu, D., van Oosterhout, C., Grigoriev, I.V., Tagliabue, A. and Zhang, J., 2022. The role of zinc in the adaptive evolution of polar phytoplankton. Nature ecology & evolution, 6(7), pp.965-978.

Papkou, A., Hedge, J., Kapel, N., Young, B. and MacLean, R.C., 2020. Efflux pump activity potentiates the evolution of antibiotic resistance across S. aureus isolates. Nature communications, 11(1), p.3970.

Not one paper mentioning the relevance of my religious beliefs or those of any others in a discussion of this topic or how a failure to outline it impairs others in providing a cogent rejection of the theory. How odd.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A search of the literature using the term "evidence for natural selection" returned 3.98 million hits in 0.07 seconds. Again, this demonstrates that the claim of no evidence for natural selection is incorrect. If you want a sampling, I can provide it, but I didn't take the time to compile one. It hardly seems necessary.

 

[John53]

The fishy stuff is why some people go to church here but refuse to say why. And then go off on tangents about being persecuted. And more refuse to offer "scientific" explanations for their retorts.

Are you gonna offer an explanation for your retorts?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It certainly is magical if you can't show it, predict it, or observe it.

We observe it every day, with every death and every birth of any organism.

It is simply assumed that those which survive are fitter than those which do not.

Yeah, right... it is an "assumption" that those who can outrun a lion are more likely to outrun a lion then those that can't.

Again you are assuming competition where observation supports cooperation

LOL

Yes, because lions, tigers, hyena's, etc are so known for sharing food.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, because you say so

Physics says so.

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

If all alternatives you can think of have the same problem, then all those alternatives you can think of are not "possible", since they are then equally absurd.
And then the actual answer is "we don't know".

whos defintinon?

Physics.

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

"brings about" => time passes for that.

"whenever an X occurs, a Y must follow" => meaning X preceeds Y, Y happens after X.

Am i wrong just because I am not using your own personal favorite definition?

No. You are wrong because you ignore GR physics and are still stuck in a Newtonian world.

...... well the above definition describes what I mean by “causation”

And it describes a phenomenon that requires temporal conditions.

if you think the definition is inappropriate, then please tell me what word should I use?

It's your own claim. It's your job to try and make sense.
I would start by entering the modern physics world of GR and leave newtonian physics behind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I don't even know how to respond to this level of juvenile "argumentation".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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


well then virtually everybody (except for tag) is wrong

I suggest you refrain from using my name and pretend to know what I will and will not say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is, (according to my own personal definition / understanding of random)

Obviously I am just being sarcastic, this is a parody of what @TagliatelliMonster is doing

It's starting to sound as if I'm living rent-free in your brain.

 

[gnostic]

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.

You do realise that atheists are not the only ones, who don’t think @leroy understand science, who don’t think he has done any research whatsoever.

All leroy has done in make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, make up his own definitions to words that no one else use.

@shunyadragon & @Dan From Smithville are theists, not atheists.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

In all honesty?!?!?! Good thing you stated IMO, because an emotional rant name calling post does not address the issue of proper use of scientific definitions. You have not provided any examples and definitions in your emotional rant.

I am a Theist and scientist with over 50 years experience and education.

Actually you have anti-science agenda concerning the sciences of evolution,

This thread is an example of the classic misuse of terms by some theists. How do you properly define "miracle."

Examples of how atheists fail to research definitions concerning science please!!!

 

[cladking]

We observe it every day, with every death and every birth of any organism.

You've told me before that every birth is the exact same species evolution be damned and every death is of the unfit unless the individual had X or more off spring.,

It's a miracle. The nature of an individual life is determined by mother nature independently of conception and the individual is unfit unless it lives to a ripe old age.

How is it even possible this can be seen as a scientific argument? It's a miracle!

Yeah, right... it is an "assumption" that those who can outrun a lion are more likely to outrun a lion then those that can't.

A lion can run up to 50 MPH and no homo sapien could. By your logic I am proven correct that homo sapiens are extinct. The fossil record shows beyond doubt that homo sapiens weren't fast enough. The science is settled. Case closed. Just stay in bed tomorrow we're done now.

Yes, because lions, tigers, hyena's, etc are so known for sharing food.

[sigh]

"Nature" "reality" is not just a bunch of individuals and species. It is the interaction of every particle in the universe along with the behavior of every individual. This behavior is the result of consciousness and learning in every individual but homo omnisciencis. "Reality" is composed of cause and effect and is the constellation of processes that Darwin failed to describe. The reality is a lion's kill is often consumed by hyenas. Our best abstraction (remember no abstraction is real) to describe this process is "cooperation". Despite being sworn enemies nothing goes to waste because nature would never create a life for the sole use as food. All individuals are equally fit.

Darwin believed in countless miracles from linear progress to a Creator Who turned over speciation to fitness. He believed in steady populations and that it wasn't necessary to understand consciousness to understand speciation. He believed in miracles and that he could induce the nature of reality itself using 19th century assumptions and beliefs. he believed that some conclusions were better than others and experiment wasn't necessary to theory.

His beliefs have already led to centuries of genocide.

In the practical world one could say "science" is chiefly a perspective and as such modern science has utterly failed. From anthropology to zoology science has failed because even most peers have made conclusions.

 

[cladking]

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.

This tiny little pile of debris that required less than .001% as much work as the Great Pyramid and was built by people many centuries later is known by the exact same word "pyramid". Its existence is then used to prove that pyramids were tombs built with ramps by ignorant and highly superstitious people for use as tombs. This tiny little rubble pile fits right into the culture that built it but not the earlier ones since there is no writing from the earlier times when real pyramids were built.

This is what passes for "science" today; semantics, assumptions, and scholarship. This is exactly the same methodology used by the Spanish Inquisition.