Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

If this were true we'd all be babbling incoherently, wouldn't we?

It could be argued that some are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Their badder almost than mein.

Oh, my bladder. I could tell you horror stories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We each define our own terms. This is how language works. Everything else is a word game.

There's no point trying to talk about it if you refuse to accept other peoples' definitions.

And still you are not providing definitions. Surely, you can see this, so it must a game?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We each define our own terms. This is how language works. Everything else is a word game.

There's no point trying to talk about it if you refuse to accept other peoples' definitions.

Work with me here. Let's try to act on a novel idea. Let's pretend none of us understand anything you post. And you are going to teach us.

All I'm going to request is that you:

1. List the terms relevant to your claims and define them.

2. List the assumptions of Darwin and show us how they are false.

3. Follow your claims with an argument and evidence to support them.

Can you do that? I would think that this should be easy for you to do. You could do it all from memory without searching resources given the magnitude of knowledge and understanding you claim for yourself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We each define our own terms. This is how language works. Everything else is a word game.

There's no point trying to talk about it if you refuse to accept other peoples' definitions.

And you are gone again.

When you get back, if you could teach us with examples, definitions and evidence, that sure would be sciency of you.

 

[John53]

If this were true we'd all be babbling incoherently, wouldn't we?

We're not?!?!?!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We each define our own terms. This is how language works. Everything else is a word game.

There's no point trying to talk about it if you refuse to accept other peoples' definitions.

Good to see you back. Any chance you are tackling my requests in some reasonable way?

 

[cladking]

I'm still waiting to see this happen. And waiting...

All the times I've said he believed in stable populations, linear progress and consciousness is irrelevant to change in species and these don't even ring a bell. I've listed dozens if not hundreds of his false assumptions and they are dismissed and then definitions for the words I use are dismissed. Believers in science simply change my argument by dismissal and changing it.

Metaphysics is the basis of science. This is what it means almost every single time I use it and nobody can change that. I could use the word "Gristle" to mean basis of science but I did not because the first definition of metaphysics is "basis of science" and I kindda like the word. It would be a perfect word without the prefix "meta" since belief in science is "metametaphysics" which sounds clumsy. "Metaepistemological" is not quite what I mean when I describe believers in science.

I love words and even loved them before I discovered that most of them derive from the vocabulary used by homo sapiens before the tower of babel. Do I really need to say with every utterance that i might be wrong? What is it that causes people to be so sure of their beliefs that every other belief is heresy? I believe our words derive from Ancient Language but I could be wrong. Everyone else is right but I could be wrong. Darwin was certain he was right but don't forget he had dozens of erroneous assumptions, unless I'm wrong of course.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All the times I've said he believed in stable populations,

He followed Malthus and considered that populations bred beyond the means of the environment to sustain them.

linear progress

No. Not progress, but change when driven by the environment. Natural selection. The mechanism of evolutionary change.

and consciousness is irrelevant to change in species

Consciousness was not part of the theory of evolution and still isn't. There is no evidence supporting conscious action in evolution.

and these don't even ring a bell.

I know you have claimed this before, but these are not the assumptions underlying the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and they are not underlying the modern synthesis either. These are of your own making and not of Darwin or in science.

I've listed dozens if not hundreds of his false assumptions

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You post lots of rambling and nothing coherent regarding the theory of evolution and the assumptions associated with it.

and they are dismissed and then definitions for the words I use are dismissed.

You offer no definitions of words and when corrected on your misapplication of definitions, you ignore the corrections and act as if they were never offered. The famous one is your mislabeling of bottleneck, but there are others.

Believers in science simply change my argument by dismissal and changing it.

You fail to make arguments. You declare things without support. This is recognized by reasonable people that have knowledge of science and the evidence.

Metaphysics is the basis of science.

I know you have declared it so, but it isn't. The two long ago went their separate ways.

This is what it means almost every single time I use it and nobody can change that.

It isn't meaningful and you can't define terms or conditions by fiat.

I could use the word "Gristle" to mean basis of science but I did not because the first definition of metaphysics is "basis of science" and I kindda like the word.

For all the good your declarations and secret meanings are, you might as well use gristle.

It would be a perfect word without the prefix "meta" since belief in science is "metametaphysics" which sounds clumsy. "Metaepistemological" is not quite what I mean when I describe believers in science.

And then you ramble on.

I love words and even loved them before I discovered that most of them derive from the vocabulary used by homo sapiens before the tower of babel.

An event claimed but not substantiated. How would you have discovered this around an event that is unsubstantiated with no known timeline. Do you not see that you are claiming as fact things not in evidence?

Do I really need to say with every utterance that i might be wrong?

You can save yourself the trouble. That condition is easily discerned.

What is it that causes people to be so sure of their beliefs that every other belief is heresy?

It isn't other people that have beliefs declaring all else heresy. It is that you have beliefs you claim are facts without evidence and everything else is heresy.

I believe our words derive from Ancient Language

Another fact that isn't a fact. No ancient language to look at, examine, read, etc., etc., etc. You are making claims about something that you cannot produce for examination, discussion or debate and offering empty declarations that it existed or exists.

Do you possess writing in this language that dates back 40,000 years? Not symbols on a cave wall, but a language with evidence. Do you have recordings of this language? Do you have anything to base your claim on?

You've never shown it to anyone on this forum and not on any of the forums you frequent.

but I could be wrong.

You could also not even be right.

Everyone else is right but I could be wrong.

Woe is me isn't going to substantiate your claims either.

Darwin was certain he was right but don't forget he had dozens of erroneous assumptions, unless I'm wrong of course.

How can a person forget dozens of assumptions that have never been shown to exist.

I don't know that Darwin felt he was certain. In fact, he waited to publish because of the nature of what he had discovered. He was rather uncertain.

You don't seem to know any of the things that a high school would know regarding biology, science or the theory of evolution. What you report is what you believe and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[cladking]

Consciousness was not part of the theory of evolution and still isn't. There is no evidence supporting conscious action in evolution.

So you seem to agree with Darwin's assumption that it is irrelevant.

 

[John53]

Oh dear

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you seem to agree with Darwin's assumption that it is irrelevant.

I see what you are doing here and what you aren't. You aren't providing the evidence to support your claim. There is no point in some ham-handed attempt to turn this around and attempt to shove your burden of proof onto me. It is not my honor to bear, but yours.

Darwin made no such assumption and you have not provided anything to indicate that he did.

Being familiar with the theory, I know of no assumption or claim regarding consciousness relevant to the theory and to speciation.

You could fix this by providing the evidence with a cogent argument, but my expectation is that you never will.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you seem to agree with Darwin's assumption that it is irrelevant.

It is all very simple. You claim to know many truths that you claim are invisible to everyone else. You preach these truths on here claiming others are just wrong. You can't show us anything to support that these truths are something we can examine and agree with you about. How can anyone say anything about evidence that isn't offered or claims that aren't supported other than to point those major flaws out? Then there is this seemingly demonic group called Peers that you are in constant battle with. Apparently they are driving a global conspiracy against your truths and leading us all astray, because we have eaten their fruit.

Dude, you have a religion that you are claiming is science.

 

[cladking]

Then there is this seemingly demonic group called Peers that you are in constant battle with.

I have no problem with peers, expertise, or scholarship.

I have a problem with laymen, scientists, or Peers who believe in the infallibility of doctrine.

Science is a tool and not Revealed Truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no problem with peers, expertise, or scholarship.

That does not fit with many, many, many, many of your posts.

I have a problem with laymen, scientists, or Peers who believe in the infallibility of doctrine.

I have issue with people that claim as fact things not demonstrated or in evidence and calling all of that science. Your claims on here fit that perfectly.

Science is a tool and not Revealed Truth.

Then treat it as such in these discussions. What you claim needs to be supported so that we can examine the reasoning and evidence too.

Show us the 40,000 year old writing that you are using to make your claims about ancient languages. Establish that Babel was an actual event as described and give it a date in your expert opinion.

Explain how all the evidence that shows that change in living things is not sudden fits with your claim that it is.

Demonstrate how the theory of evolution says that parents give birth to offspring that are a different species.

Demonstrate Darwin's assumptions and show that they are wrong. Not just assumptions you claim for Darwin, but those actually underlying the theory. These are available in the literature. The assumptions of the modern synthesis are available in the literature too. Or are all these scientists suddenly catergorized as believers to be dismissed and substitute your claims as fact in their absences?

You have a lot of work to do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no problem with peers, expertise, or scholarship.

I have a problem with laymen, scientists, or Peers who believe in the infallibility of doctrine.

Science is a tool and not Revealed Truth.

My honest opinion is that it seems like you are trying to establish a doctrine that you consider infallible.

 

[cladking]

Show us the 40,000 year old writing that you are using to make your claims about ancient languages.

Like it matters.

 

[cladking]

I mightta also have mentioned ancient writing says they used linear funiculars to build the pyramids and this has allowed me to make accurate predictions about what physical evidence would be found years before it was found. This same writing suggests the individuals who invented agriculture used a theory regarding change in species and knew nothing about Darwin or survival of the fittest.

Of course the FACT they invented agriculture doesn't prove their version was the correct one. It certainly does suggest we're confused though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, my bladder. I could tell you horror stories.

Mine can get very insistent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no problem with peers, expertise, or scholarship.

I have a problem with laymen, scientists, or Peers who believe in the infallibility of doctrine.

Science is a tool and not Revealed Truth.

You once related a tale to me regarding your creation of a new species of fly by killing all but those that landed on the underside of a table.

You didn't indicate that you determined what species of fly you were working with or that it was a single species population. You didn't express any expertise in dipterology or fly behavioral biology. You seem to have assumed that landing on the underside of a table was some new, previously unrecorded behavior that must be from some recent mutation. At least you never mentioned this one of many critical pieces of information that you would need to know to say anything about your lunchtime dipteracidal spree. There are so many things that you didn't do or determine that you needed to do in order to come to the conclusion that you created a new species of fly.

All that can be said is you killed a few flies to fill time during a lunch.

Flies have been known to land on the underside of objects for a very long time. It isn't a new now and wasn't a new discovery when you made it for yourself.

But you delivered it as if you had done exactly what you claimed and without any evidence other than the tale.

That told me a lot about the sort of science and scholarship I was dealing with.