Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

Whatever you may say, I find many here that firmly believe in the process of evolution from beginning to the present, not really honest.

Why don't you find them honest? What evidence distinguishes the acceptance of a scientific theory based on the evidence as a position of dishonesty?

They may think they're honest, but their posts reveal otherwise.

What is it in particular about these posts that is revealed as evidence of a dishonest position to you? Please share this information. It would be particularly valuable to me, since I cannot say I have seen it. I wouldn't want to miss something like that.

 

[Pogo]

Whatever you may say, I find many here that firmly believe in the process of evolution from beginning to the present, not really honest. They may think they're honest, but their posts reveal otherwise.

I think it is time for you to actually back up your claims of dishonesty, how exactly do our posts reveal this dishonesty? Dishonesty is not a trivial claim in polite society.

 

[Pogo]

I think it is time for you to actually back up your claims of dishonesty, how exactly do our posts reveal this dishonesty? Dishonesty is not a trivial claim in polite society.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.)

How is it misleading and why does the existence of three categories lead you to conclude the research is implying categories of equivalent proportion? It could be, it isn't, but merely categorizing doesn't imply proportionality.

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!

The mutation might be inconsequential, but the process that generates the mutation is what is considered to have gone awry, hence the mutation. You are commenting on the source and focusing on the consequence of the outcome. Like 3 people falling out of a tree. One isn't harmed at all. One has trivial bruising. The third has a broken limb. The process of climbing has gone awry. The fact that two of them don't have anything substantial to show for that doesn't imply or demonstrate that the climbing didn't go awry.

Your comments might lead someone to think you don't really understand the paper and what it is saying.

Who wrote this, Doogie Howser?

I fail to see the value in this comment in regards to the work or the results. Given that you don't seem to fully grasp those results, it fails even further. What value lead you write a question like that?

And peer-reviewed by the Three Stooges?

As well this one. I don't see any indication of fault or flaw from poor review that would be equivalent to having the Three Stooges as reviewers. I wouldn't make such a comment regarding your own post despite the need for review that is revealed. What is it in this paper that elicits such a comment about the reviewers that you feel warrants it and adds value and explanation to your position?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi @Pogo you caught me in the middle of my own review when you rated it. I hope you agree with my edit of the last paragraph. I did a little personal review of my own. Wouldn't want anyone to wonder if the Three Stooges reviewed shoddy work and passed it on. That would be a scathing quip that requires some evidence and I didn't want to just give it away.

 

[Pogo]

Hi @Pogo you caught me in the middle of my own review when you rated it. I hope you agree with my edit of the last paragraph. I did a little personal review of my own. Wouldn't want anyone to wonder if the Three Stooges reviewed shoddy work and passed it on. That would be a scathing quip that requires some evidence and I didn't want to just give it away.

Well winner is still yours, but as I think I may have intimated in at least one of my posts, this is not actually a paper but the quote in question is only the introduction to a short blurb telling readers that the researchers in question have identified some new mechanisms for mutation.
Nothing in the original quote or follow up had anything to do with review, as I said, it was an introduction expressing what an assumed audience would have learned in HS.
My objection is that in even questioning this innocuous introduction to a press release, we have those who are claiming without justification that it is evidence that we do not understand evolution.
This has become a tiresome mantra of "we don't know everything, so therefore we don;t know anything and whatever I believe is just as valid."

It is late and a beautiful night, if you have further whatever, I am trying to be a good boy so maybe contact me offline.

 

[Valjean]

Please -- make your comment to those who claim evolution is true. They still can't explain it. But they try. Mutations, long time evolving, etc. I fully expect to see wonderful things, I have seen some wonderful things.

We've been explaining it for 150 years, and every year the explanation becomes more detailed and better supported. It's not a complicated idea. The basics are commonsense.

 

[Pogo]

Please -- make your comment to those who claim evolution is true. They still can't explain it. But they try. Mutations, long time evolving, etc. I fully expect to see wonderful things, I have seen some wonderful things.

Yes and we have seen what you expect. Your fantasies only reflect your ignorance.

Any time you wish to discuss honestly, we are here.

 

[Pogo]

Whatever you may say, I find many here that firmly believe in the process of evolution from beginning to the present, not really honest. They may think they're honest, but their posts reveal otherwise

That is fine, present them and their rational arguments or even your own if you can't actually produce them.
If you wish to accuse anyone of dishonesty, let us get it out there.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The same is true for @It Aint Necessarily So
In my view

I got your meaning

 

[Valjean]

Whatever you may say, I find many here that firmly believe in the process of evolution from beginning to the present, not really honest. They may think they're honest, but their posts reveal otherwise.

Honest? How is it not honest? Are scientists knowingly trying to deceive people?
The evidence is overwhelming, but it clashes with your religion. You deny supporting evidence, you believe without evidence. You struggle not to understand.

 

[Pogo]

I got your meaning

Since you are here, would you like to justify your position on the introduction to the promotional piece?
As I have stated, the original quote was nothing more than a statement of the accepted basics of evolution and yet you found some "objection".
Can you justify your position? Note, this only relates to the introductory paragraph, not what it was introducing.

Let's see if you actually support your sister.

 

[Pogo]

Honest? How is it not honest? Are scientists knowingly trying to deceive people?
The evidence is overwhelming, but it clashes with your religion. You deny supporting evidence, you believe without evidence. You struggle not to understand.

I've come to the conclusion recently that reason and evidence are not the relevant "metric" but the one that should be questioned that so far they still claim is honesty.

Denial of that which you claim not to see is not by itself a violation for the prohibition against false witness since you have not yet admitted to seeing the evidence. Can anybody provide me with a scripture that disallows denial of what is in front of you?"

Yes, to me it sounds redundant.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

OK, thanks for your in-depth post. It helped me to see where I was wrong.

But I do think that the usage of ‘some’, ‘some’ & ‘some’ (which accounts for the whole) implies an equal measure; hence that can be misleading. We know these 3 types of mutations are not found equally by a long shot.

Thanks for your amicable responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please -- make your comment to those who claim evolution is true. They still can't explain it. But they try. Mutations, long time evolving, etc. I fully expect to see wonderful things, I have seen some wonderful things.

That you cannot understand explanations does not mean that it has not been explained. People will often give a very simple explanation to you, that is because you have a hard time even understanding that. The answer is more complicated than the simple explanations. But if you cannot understand the simple explanations there is no way that you can understand the complex ones.

 

[Pogo]

That you cannot understand explanations does not mean that it has not been explained. People will often give a very simple explanation to you, that is because you have a hard time even understanding that. The answer is more complicated than the simple explanations. But if you cannot understand the simple explanations there is no way that you can understand the complex ones.

That said whenever any potential complexity is presented it is suddenly reason to discard everything even if there is no understanding of the basis or the complexity.

Understanding may not be the driving issue in the responses.

 

[leroy]

No, your and @B-psychedelic's claim is that the Bible is proof of God, you have not demonstrated it to be true.

Nope in fact in this line of comments my claim was that you will not support your assertion that I don't understand the term "evidence" (within 24 hours)

Do you admit that my claim has been proven true,?

Example:

• Person A: "Aliens definitely exist because you can't prove that they don't."
• Person B: "But you haven't provided any evidence that aliens exist."
• Person A: "It's up to you to prove they don't!"

Can you provide an example where I behaved like person A? (Quote my words)

I'll use my tine machine again...... ... ... Nope I looked in to the future and you failed to provide an example

If @B-psychedelic ever behaved like person 1 I would join you and tell him that he is wrong

 

[leroy]

Your opinion does not matter. You have an extremely biased viewpoint. Historians tend to ignore holy books when they mention gods and their activities, whether it is the Odyssey or the New Testament.


By the way, does the Odyssey have any self contradicting stories in it? I know that the New Testament does. In fact it has quite a few.

Ok but do you deny/reject any of the 4 points that I made in the comment that you are responding ?

 

[leroy]

did not say that you don't admit errors. I say you do not seem able to admit errors

And I asked ..".what is the difference?" And you refused to answer.... This shows :

1 that I am actually willing to learn and admit my mistakes

2 that probably you know that there is no relevant difference otherwise you would have answered.

It might be a language issue, but it seems to me that both are accusations that I don't admit errors .... If you prove me wrong I will admit my mistake

 

[leroy]

No, you don't. You feel the NT meets the standards. It can be pretty easily demonstrated that it does not.

Ok so what standards do you suggest to test if a text is reliable ?


Why does the new testament fails according to those standards?

We don't know who wrote the gospels.

Are you saying that we should reject all anonymous sources just because they are anonymous ?

We do know the claims are unsupported and sometimes fantastical. Fantastical claims demand extraordinary supportive evidence. There is none.

Nearly All ancient texts have extraordinary events..... Should we reject the books written by Josephus ? Or Plutarch or Arian or Tacitus for that reason?