Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[wellwisher]

The "logic of miracles"? And it is creationists that cause the Bible to be put down by abusing it. It can be properly used as a source for lessons on how to treat your fellow human beings. The value of faith, and other areas having to do with a belief in God. But it fails if one takes it too literally. Creationists are the ones that make it just a book of myths.

There is a difference between signs and symbols. A sign is a specific thing or specific piece of data, such as the Statue of Liberty is a large copper statue in NYC. As a symbol, this statue represents the concept of liberty, which is more esoteric and can take a book to exhaustively define. Religious books often talk in symbols and signs. Liberty as symbol is not a fact, but rather a fragile state of mind.

Jesus would use parables, such as the kingdom of god is like a mustard seed. It starts small and grows into the largest plant in the garden. If you take that literally as a sign, the statement seems weird to talk about the Kingdom of God being at the quantum level. But if you think of it a symbol within the parable, it has deeper meaning. The sign is more for the left brain; 1-D or 2-D, and the symbol; 3-D, is more for the right brain.

The value of this style is the over simplification, caused by the signs, make it easier even for children to remember. Everyone remembers †he story of Adam and Eve. As you get older and more mature, you can learn to decompress the sign into the symbol. The style was designed for easy transport; zip file that took less memory space, but was always ready for decompression. It is also designed to get more of the brain involved. The right brain besides processing symbols is also connected to processing emotions, which is part of the writing to memory process. Faith is a type of integrating feeling in space and time; right brain. The left brain is more about differentiation; compressed file.

A good analogy is mass and gravity. Mass is more tangible due to having substance, while gravity emanates from the mass in all directions and not easy to see but is invisible and has to be inferred from its interactions with other things. Faith is like gravity; symbols, that expand from the signs of the times; mass. This type of thinking helps one learn to process data in the corpus callosum that connects the two hemispheres. God the symbol is the ultimate 4-D symbol that integrates all in space and time. God the sign has many names; zip files.

 

[Pogo]

It is obvious that your thought was not heard by anyone else.

The nature of our physical existence exists beyond any egocentric human belief in the nature of our physical existence.

Of course, you may be the product of warped demented AI program and no one would know that.

Or my personal reason for agnosticism, the christian god could be close, but we got the snarky kid in God school who said, lets see what happens if I do this. It will be fun to watch.

Ultimately just as explanatory.

 

[Pogo]

A rooster will give a better fight than a chicken, because the rooster has pointy bony spurs on its ankles. If confronted, a rooster can jump straight up and come down with his spurs like two knives. He can leave a good wound or two, each attack.

The main job of the rooster is to keep watch for predators so the chicken can forage in peace; free range. The rooster looks both in the air for hawks and on the ground for the fox. Fox will prefer get a chicken or their eggs. The watchful rooster will make a lot of noise if he sees the fox and fight if confronted. If the chickens hear the warning they will run for cover.

The fox will prefer ambush a chicken before the rooster gets wind. Or wait for the night and get them as they sleep. This is where a secure night shelter comes in. Typically, there is only one rooster per about 12 chickens or hens. If you have too many roosters they will fight and spur each other. Chickens or hens will peck each other but since they usually do not have spurs, this is much less fatal. This helps defines the pecking order or their social status.

Has it ever dawned on you that Roosters with spikes or larger spikes will statistically survive more often? You can do an endless line of what ifs and never get anywhere or you can use your dreaded statistics and determine with a certain amount of probability whether there is a correlation between two aspects. Just saying.

 

[Pogo]

The anthropomorphic perspective of simply what is that natural behavior of animals, which can be easily explained by natural processes and natural evolution, contributes nothing to your biased lack of understanding and intentional lack of knowledge of the English language concerning the definition of 'miracle.'

There is no evidence for randomness in the processes of nature.

Disagree here, the meeting of Rooster and Fox relative to their innate abilities is effectively random. That said, "smarter" foxes and spikier Roosters will be around more often than the alternatives in this scenario, but this is hardly a miracle.

 

[Pogo]

Thank you. I wasn't aware the rooster was so much of a threat. I did know that blue jays will come down on your head and dig in if sufficiently provoked and it doesn't take much to provoke a jay. I once saw a film of a mother rescuing her bunny from a bobcat. The thing just kicked it into next week.

Life is very complicated and so are the causes of speciation. How anyone thinks you can summarize it with "survival of the fittest" while ignoring consciousness and communication is beyond me. But our species likes to reduce everything to elemental processes without considering any complicating factors. We get so big for our britches that we just assume experts must be right or they wouldn't have the support of their Peers.

Easy, consciousness and ability to communicate are aspects of fitness. Defining them quantitatively is more difficult than defining strength or size but still just a part of fitness. You agree consciousness and communication exist, so they are amenable to the scientific method no matter how imperfectly we may currently understand them.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is obvious science is beyond your comprehension based on an intentional ignorance of science based on and ancient philosophical/religious agenda without science.

Science has an adequate explanation of the nature of our physical existences live, evolution and consciousness

 

[shunyadragon]

Disagree here, the meeting of Rooster and Fox relative to their innate abilities is effectively random. That said, "smarter" foxes and spikier Roosters will be around more often than the alternatives in this scenario, but this is hardly a miracle.

The meeting of the rooster and the fox as well as the timing and occurrence of individual outcomes of cause and effect event are indeed have an element of randomness, but they do not represent the "processes of nature" like Natural Selection, which are not random.

Nonetheless the fox plans the hunt for the rooster and the rooster has defenses, therefor in this case not totally random.

 

[Pogo]

The meeting of the rooster and the fox as well as the timing and occurrence of individual outcomes of cause and effect event are indeed have an element of randomness, but they do not represent the "processes of nature" like Natural Selection, which are not random.

Nonetheless the fox plans the hunt for the rooster and the rooster has defenses, therefor in this case not totally random.

Fine, but the variation in reproduction is a process of nature.
We will leave its as yet undemonstrated possibly fractal nature for another day.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is a difference between signs and symbols. A sign is a specific thing or specific piece of data, such as the Statue of Liberty is a large copper statue in NYC. As a symbol, this statue represents the concept of liberty, which is more esoteric and can take a book to exhaustively define. Religious books often talk in symbols and signs. Liberty as symbol is not a fact, but rather a fragile state of mind.

Jesus would use parables, such as the kingdom of god is like a mustard seed. It starts small and grows into the largest plant in the garden. If you take that literally as a sign, the statement seems weird to talk about the Kingdom of God being at the quantum level. But if you think of it a symbol within the parable, it has deeper meaning. The sign is more for the left brain; 1-D or 2-D, and the symbol; 3-D, is more for the right brain.

The value of this style is the over simplification, caused by the signs, make it easier even for children to remember. Everyone remembers †he story of Adam and Eve. As you get older and more mature, you can learn to decompress the sign into the symbol. The style was designed for easy transport; zip file that took less memory space, but was always ready for decompression. It is also designed to get more of the brain involved. The right brain besides processing symbols is also connected to processing emotions, which is part of the writing to memory process. Faith is a type of integrating feeling in space and time; right brain. The left brain is more about differentiation; compressed file.

A good analogy is mass and gravity. Mass is more tangible due to having substance, while gravity emanates from the mass in all directions and not easy to see but is invisible and has to be inferred from its interactions with other things. Faith is like gravity; symbols, that expand from the signs of the times; mass. This type of thinking helps one learn to process data in the corpus callosum that connects the two hemispheres. God the symbol is the ultimate 4-D symbol that integrates all in space and time. God the sign has many names; zip files.

First gravity does not emanate from the mass, bad science, "Easy?" of course we cannot see gravity, and it is not inferred it is objectively measured.

Faith is not like gravity it is subjective belief in things without evidence in terms of belief in Gods, spirits, supernatural and miracles. The bold is incomprehensible nonsense.

In your case "Trash in results in trach out."

 

[cladking]

It is very amusing to see, since the implication is that you have all the answers and others don't. That is the amusing part.

More accurately I believe I know some of the important questions today. I believe no answers will ever come from reason and experiment but instead ever more relevant questions.

Experiments test hypotheses by developing a body of observations. Experiment is not required to develop this body of observations. You have been told this so often, it is staggers the mind that it hasn't sunk in.

And I disagree. I have agreed that "experiment" has a sufficiently broad definition to include some things that take place outside the lab and with no control but no amount of logic, consensus, or scholarship can ever create theory. The word is merely misapplied in some instances. Even where it's properly applied as in "the theory of gravity" it doesn't mean we know everything about gravity.

 

[YoursTrue]

I guess I don't know what you're saying here. A bolus of mutagenic radiation impacts a DNA base and modifies the genetic code, or maybe there is a copying error, and the genome is slightly modified. Is that the process that you are suggesting can go awry?

What can go awry is the development of offspring if that mutation occurred in an egg or sperm cell. The mutation might cause death, disease, or disability. It's the process of constructing this offspring that goes awry when this happens.

Or, there might be no effect. Many amino acids have more than one codon (in case you've forgotten, that's a three-base group on the DNA that corresponds to a "negative" set of three bases on a piece of transfer RNA called an anti-codon connected to an amino acid). Here's a corner of the table of all possible anticodons (4^3=64) for the tRNA. Look at phenylalanine (Phe), which is coded UUU and UUC. These are nucleic acids that will bind to DNA codons AAA and AAG (also nucleic acids). Suppose the DNA mutates from AAA to AAG. That will have no effect on the protein generated by the process. Phe will remain in the same spot:

View attachment 94097

But maybe the mutation changes the amino acid coded, and there is a change in the protein generated. Maybe that protein is an enzyme, and maybe the mutation caused an inconsequential change in its overall conformation (3D shape) remote from the active catalytic site (where the chemistry occurs).

Or maybe the new enzymes is slightly more efficient. That's a beneficial mutation if it results in increased survival and reproduction in the offspring.

What can go awry is the growth and development of the conceptus, not the mutation process.

No, I wouldn't pick a fight with you. I was disagreeing your interpretation of the quote, which was that some and some and some imply 1/3 each.

Thanks, and you, too. Hope it's safe and comfortable where you live.

Just wondering what scientists say makes - causes a mutation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Fine, but the variation in reproduction is a process of nature.
We will leave its as yet undemonstrated possibly fractal nature for another day.

We can discuss this later, bit the key is "variation," but I propose "variation" involves the timing and occurrence of individual events unless you are using the term in a different way.

 

[Pogo]

More accurately I believe I know some of the important questions today. I believe no answers will ever come from reason and experiment but instead ever more relevant questions.



And I disagree. I have agreed that "experiment" has a sufficiently broad definition to include some things that take place outside the lab and with no control but no amount of logic, consensus, or scholarship can ever create theory. The word is merely misapplied in some instances. Even where it's properly applied as in "the theory of gravity" it doesn't mean we know everything about gravity.

Again, we have a definitional problem, gravity is one of the least appropriate subjects to apply the word theory to. How are you defining theory?

 

[Pogo]

Just wondering what scientists say makes - causes a mutation.

Lots of things, no, we don't know all of them, but that has nothing to do with that they demonstrably occur and have demonstrable effects.
The we don't know everything therefore we don't know anything and so anything is possible schtick is really tiresome and juvenile.

 

[shunyadragon]

More accurately I believe I know some of the important questions today. I believe no answers will ever come from reason and experiment but instead ever more relevant questions.

So circular it is meaningless.

And I disagree. I have agreed that "experiment" has a sufficiently broad definition to include some things that take place outside the lab and with no control but no amount of logic, consensus, or scholarship can ever create theory. The word is merely misapplied in some instances. Even where it's properly applied as in "the theory of gravity" it doesn't mean we know everything about gravity.

Disagree with your loosey goosey definition of experiment, and it is not relevant to how experiment is defined in science. Experiment in science is defined to take placed in relatively controlled conditions and taking into consideration the variables that cannot be controlled, Some experiments can be done outside the lab in controlled conditions when understanding the variables as in agricultural research. Many things that are observed outside the lab would be objective observations of the nature of our physical existence and not experiments under controlled conditions.

 

[shunyadragon]

More accurately I believe I know some of the important questions today. I believe no answers will ever come from reason and experiment but instead ever more relevant questions.

So circular it is meaningless.

And I disagree. I have agreed that "experiment" has a sufficiently broad definition to include some things that take place outside the lab and with no control but no amount of logic, consensus, or scholarship can ever create theory. The word is merely misapplied in some instances. Even where it's properly applied as in "the theory of gravity" it doesn't mean we know everything about gravity.

Disagree with your loosey goosey definition of experiment, and it is not relevant o ho experiment is defined in science, Some experiments can be done outside the lab in controlled conditions when understanding the variables as in agricultural research. Many things that are observed outside the lab would be objective observations of the nature of our physical existence and not experiments under controlled conditions.

 

[cladking]

Easy, consciousness and ability to communicate are aspects of fitness.

If there were such a thing as fitness, this would probably be largely true. But I would still think of consciousness more as life itself rather than some abstract characteristic that improves the odds of survival and affects the nature of species.

Defining them quantitatively is more difficult than defining strength or size but still just a part of fitness.

I seriously doubt any quantitative measure will ever adequately reflect the nature of consciousness.

You agree consciousness and communication exist, so they are amenable to the scientific method no matter how imperfectly we may currently understand them.

This is a leap. While I believe consciousness will eventually reveal some secrets to science there is no way to be certain. In very real ways science will have to peer into its own soul to understand consciousness so modeling and quantifying it may simply prove impossible. While I might doubt it it's even possible consciousness will prove to be "supernatural'. It might have ephemeral definitions and highly discreet or no discernable characteristics. I believe it will prove to be "natural" but this is a prejudice caused by what I want to believe. I want to believe that science can come to understand virtually everything except the effects of chaos which will mean prediction will never be possible.

 

[Pogo]

We can discuss this later, bit the key is "variation," but I propose "variation" involves the timing and occurrence of individual events unless you are using the term in a different way.

Another time, it is Saturday afternoon and I need to end my AC break and get some things done.

 

[cladking]

Again, we have a definitional problem, gravity is one of the least appropriate subjects to apply the word theory to. How are you defining theory?

1
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Definition of THEORY

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena; a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I consider "theory" to be a statement of scientific fact as based on state of the art definitions and interpretation of experiment.

Obviously any theory can change at any time.

 

[shunyadragon]

If there were such a thing as fitness, this would probably be largely true. But I would still think of consciousness more as life itself rather than some abstract characteristic that improves the odds of survival and affects the nature of species.

Consciousness is a natural objectively observed property of animals with a complex nervous system

I seriously doubt any quantitative measure will ever adequately reflect the nature of consciousness.

Your doubt represents intentional ignorance of science comes into play here based on your agenda.

This is a leap. While I believe consciousness will eventually reveal some secrets to science there is no way to be certain. In very real ways science will have to peer into its own soul to understand consciousness so modeling and quantifying it may simply prove impossible. While I might doubt it it's even possible consciousness will prove to be "supernatural'. It might have ephemeral definitions and highly discreet or no discernable characteristics. I believe it will prove to be "natural" but this is a prejudice caused by what I want to believe. I want to believe that science can come to understand virtually everything except the effects of chaos which will mean prediction will never be possible.

What you believe does not determine the objective advancing knowledge of science concerning even the basics like:
(1) Conscious ness is an observe neurological nature of all animals with a complex nervous system. (2) When the animal dies there is no consciousness.

All you can do do is argue a vague "arguing from ignorance" based on your agenda.