Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the screen you believe you reading this on is really there. The evil demon could be tricking you and you are dreaming reality.
How do you know beyound that you are thinking that your experiences are real?

I guess you could wonder if you're there or I'm there. Thanks for conversation. Not sure what conclusions I draw from this, but thanks anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just because you have a picture of Santa in your book doesn't mean he exists, and just because WLC made an argument doesn't mean it is a good one, you can nitpick individual sentences as you often do with your idiosyncratic vocabulary, but the end is still that Kalam is a failed argument whether you regurgitate it or not.

Yes and according to some you may not be there inputting your words on a screen either....

 

[shunyadragon]

I have rarely if ever seen you give a complete detailed informative answer. Take care.

The detailed informative answers can be found in the references and in the scientific cites that give long exhaustive references at the layman and scientific level.

If the horse won't drink let it die.

 

[John53]

Lol you usually don't have long posts. I'll wait.

So what exactly are you guaranteeing I can't explain? I can't explain something I don't do?

 

[Pogo]

Yes and according to some you may not be there inputting your words on a screen either....

Yes, that idea is more for your benefit as it is to lead you to the question of whether or not there is a good god, or whether it might all be deceit in either direction. Me, I don't care, I just take the universe as I and others see it as what it is, whether there is more or not.
As for access to a Bible, I would think most people who went to Jesuit colleges probably did and his later degree in Canon Law probably required one as well.

 

[cladking]

Well I think I have the answer, but materialists wont like it

Your guess is as good as theirs.

I like how they had predicted that the universe was slowing its expansion for so many many years and the only thing left for the human race to know was whether or not it would collapse back in on itself or fly apart forever. But then when it was discovered that it's actually is accelerating they changed the laws of physics to say that gravity doesn't work in between galaxies.

Everybody has always explained everything in terms of what they themselves believe so most answers are facile and convenient. Ironically science doesn't even have a definition for the word "consciousness" so it's impossible to invent even a facile answer. Of course since they've never considered the idea of consciousness beyond "I think therefore I am, it just doesn't matter. Egyptologists study the pyramids with their backs to them and biologists study life with their backs to consciousness. Of course if I'm right that consciousness is life then they are missing everything and it's not consciousness that is irrelevant so much as it is biologists. They could be looking straight into the face of God and just see Darwin.

 

[Kfox]

Science is not dependent on Atheist nor Theist agendas.

There is objective verifiable evidence that at one point in the geologic history of the earth life did not exists,

Care to present this objective verifiable evidence?

About 4.2 billion years ago the environment at hydrothermal vents in the ocean became ideal for the beginning of life and the first primitive life formed

Abiogenesis and evolution are dependent on the environment and changing environments.

Hasn't Abiogenesis been disproven already?

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

byjus.com

 

[shunyadragon]

You mean empirical evidence. Category error.

I am going to add this to my list of words dishonestly misused, self-defined, and misrepresented based on an ancient tribal agenda. The list will likely grow.

1) evidence (objective vs subjective)
2) miracle (standard English definition)
3) nothing (science vs philosophical/theological use)
4) probability and statistics.
5) Category error
6) random
7) Infinity
8) Proof

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well based on what do you affirm that I don’t “seems” to admit mistakes?......where is the evidence? That led to that conclusion.

Given the lack of an answer…………..it seems to me that you are just making things up……

Rabbit hole.

 

[Pogo]

Care to present this objective verifiable evidence?

Hasn't Abiogenesis been disproven already?

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

byjus.com

Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I think I have the answer, but materialists wont like it

I believe your generalizing scientists as materialists. There is no such association.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From previous conversations it is obvious that you do not understand many of the arguments

No, that is projection on your part. You do not know why and how ID failed, nor do you seem to realize that Incompetent Design" is a far more accurate claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I said there is no such thing as "species" at all

Not in any recent post in our conversation you didn't. You are adding new claims previously not in evidence.

and you say I believe an individual can change his species.

You said it, you just don't seem have the knowledge, experience and understanding of the material to realize you said it. I explained it. You did your usual and ignored it.

Obviously you are deconstructing my sentences in your terms rather than mine.

Obviously, you are trying to blame the lack of any supporting argument, evidence and understanding of the material onto me. It is not my fault or that of anyone else but yourself for the closed-minded and all seeing nature of your responses that have basis in fact that anyone, including you, has ever been able or, as the evidence indicates from your posts, willing to respond.

This works OK to maintain your existing beliefs but it is the root cause of our inability to communicate.

It would be impossible and logically inconsistent to believe every individual is the same species as its parents, no matter how you define "species" and then say that species change. Yes! I heard you say that Darwin believed a "species" is defined as all of its incarnations but these can not each manifest simultaneously and no evidence shows that the morphing over time resulted from survival of the fittest.

It is incorrect, logically inconsistent and outside of observation and experiment to claim that offspring and siblings are not the same species. You offer no evidence to the contrary and no reason to think this is more than an idea you came up with an fell in love with for not knowing any better.

Yes, you might object that each manifestation still exists within its genome but, again, most of the definitional and evidential problems remain. These older versions of the species were still each conscious individuals whether they reproduced or not. They are still distinct from the existing "species' and the path to the existing species was still a random walk that has not been shown to be based on some abstraction like "fitness".

That is all the evidence shows is that natural selection drives changes in populations. The changes aren't sudden across the population. Another thing you dreamed up and turned into a revealed truth without benefit of evidence or experiment. You've been routinely provided with references to experiments that demonstrate natural selection acting on fitness within a population. You just ignore and repeat your slogans.

There remains the logical inconsistency that if the species Evolved according to "fitness" then each generation must be fitter than the last.

There is no logical reason to assume that and the evidence doesn't demonstrate that. It could be in some species with heavy selection, but once the selection relaxes, populations can stabilize over generations.

I can parse your sentences accordingly.

That seems like you are just saying you can ignore what I have taught you and substitute what amounts to your science fan fiction in place of that knowledge. You aren't parsing my words. You are ignoring them.

You can't step into the same river twice.

You like to deliver these slogans that must mean something to you, but nothing to me in the context of this conversation.

This is reality not some philosophical precept.

In my opinion, that is all you have and you created this personal philosophy for secret reasons and without benefit of a background in science, or knowledge of the subjects you make wild claims about.

For every practical purpose every individual is a different species than its parents or siblings.

Not at all. The evidence doesn't say and there is no valid reason to think it, consider it or use for anything.

I have a virtually "identical" twin who's two years older.

Good for you. You are the same species. Just different individuals. The similarities arise from similarity of genotype.

The fixation on what individuals have in common is what led to Darwin.

You call it fixation. Science calls it recognition of the evidence. Give it a whirl. Maybe you will learn something.

Individuals are an amalgam of their parents

Individual get their genes from their parents.

and hence are much more different than the rest of their "species' and more like their siblings.

They are the same species as their parents. Trivial morphological similarity or even differences don't make them different species. You are confused and don't have the knowledge bases to examine your ideas to recognize the glaring flaws in your mandates.

No doubt when bottlenecks appear most individuals have a far higher probability of being more closely related to other survivors.

Possibly. It would depend on the how they are dispersed through the environment, the nature of bottleneck event and the geographical manifestation. It does not have to be an event that leaves one population alone while eliminating others.

When the tamest wolves were selected to breed dogs

According to the evidence this selection took place on canines that were already becoming adapted to human contact.

each selected individual was more likely to be closely or distantly related to those selected than those which were not.

I have no idea what you mean. Those that were selected were likely already on their way down a path encouraged by the environment. Do you even know anything about domestication. It isn't just teaching Rover to roll over. There are a number of events that have taken place with some similarity of pattern across the various species of animals that have been domesticated.

If you must see this in your terms then fine but just because you use Darwin's terminology does not make either of you correct.

I'm relating the knowledge acquired by science and not thinking about something, fixating on untested ideas that don't have evidence and declaring those ideas into a belief system. That seems to describe the path your ideas are on.

It just means you can communicate more easily with those who share your beliefs.

I can communicate with those that accept science on the basis of understanding and evidence. They aren't telling me things and ignoring what I'm saying or doing it without providing sound arguments with evidence and reason.

The earth can be defined as "flat" but we don't do it because it makes the math too complicated.

We don't do it, because the evidence doesn't warrant it.

Darwin has complicated the means by which species change and overlooked the mechanisms.

Darwin was the first person to come up with a mechanism. How do you not seem to know any of this and still come off sounding like you are the only expert on the thread?

In homo omnisciencis

Something you made up that has a secret meaning known only to you. It has no apparent value, use or necessity in a conversation about biology or science in general.

this is very true.

It cannot be demonstrated to be true or meaningful.

But all other life forms including the extinct homo sapiens

Not extinct. It is the extant species of humans. How do you not know or understand this. Why have created this unusual idea that has no basis in fact?

this is not true.

It is not logically possible to be true or false, since Homo sapiens exist. Two of them are posting back and forth in this conversation.

We experience reality in terms of our beliefs

I would agree if we isolated to what you have presented. It has no basis in fact. Is often contrary to known information and you can only repeat the claims without any seeming ability to defend the claims.

but the others experience it in terms of what they know.

Meaningless given the fact that nothing you are attributing to any group or species you've mentioned can be demonstrated. Some of the species aren't known to exist outside of your claims.

Their brains come to reflect reality. Their brains are the models of reality itself and the process results from the wiring of the brain with which they perceive reality and gain experience. This is the nature of consciousness which is individual and which Darwin couldn't see.

Apart from most of this not making much sense, Darwin didn't need to focus on consciousness or consider it at all to successfully come up with a theory of evolution and a mechanism to drive it. Which he did and for some reason you have developed a belief that denies this and conjures up its own facts from apparently out of your own ignorance of the subject.

I can't see how we could have a meaningful discussion given all I have seen. You have what appears to be a belief in things you have made up and with meanings you may attribute but keep to yourself. The things have no evidence and none is ever offered. You present them as universal facts that only you seem to know. You have a belief system. That's fine, but it isn't science or fact and there is no reason for me to consider anything you have stated.

You offer no reason for me to press on and continue engaging you. I don't subscribe to your belief system. Based on your posts, it isn't fact-based or determined through scientific rigor. There is no common ground between what you offer and the knowledge of biology I've acquired through study and research. You believe things for your own personal reasons and needs and I accept what I have learned based on logic, reason and evidence.

It was interesting to a point, but I think I've learned all that there is to learn here. Have a good day.

 

[shunyadragon]

Care to present this objective verifiable evidence?

First in our dialogue it appears you do not accept the scientific evidence for the history of our solar system, earth and life on earth

To back to the beginning of the earth we are dealing with the formation of the solar system when the earth was molten ball of mostly iron being pummeled by meteorites.

The rock strata before ~4.5 billion was a molten earth`1 In fact . . .

Earth’s Oldest Rocks – Historical Geology

opengeology.org

Earth’s Oldest Rocks​

When did Earth really become Earth? We’ve learned about how the solar system formed and the earliest stages in Earth formation in the case study exploring the nebular theory and the formation of the solar system. Early Earth grew through the process of collision and accretion of nebular material that ranged in size from space dust to planetesimals, perhaps some as large as small planets. We have dated Earth at 4.567 billion years (Ga) based on lead isotope data from meteorites [1]. Meteorites are the “ingredients” that formed Earth and the other terrestrial planets. This “birth of Earth” date is assigned to the onset of accretion, not at a point in which Earth had largely attained its full, accreted mass [2], [3].

The Hadean​

Earth’s first eon of geologic time is appropriately named the “Hadean” with reference to Hades, the God of the Underworld in Greek mythology. The Hadean is often described as “Hell on Earth,” the time when an extremely hostile environment existed with magma oceans boiling on the surface and noxious gases and steam enveloping the young planet. Perhaps the accompanying picture is an analogy. In this extreme environment, no life, as we know it, could possibly survive.

Hasn't Abiogenesis been disproven already?

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

byjus.com

Unreliable non-scientific source, Science never claimed life formed by spontaneous generation.

 

[cladking]

You aren't parsing my words. You are ignoring them.

I'm surprised you think that I don't know Evolution just because I don't agree with it. I was exposed to biology and its theories from a very young age and took courses of various types all through school. I "learned" it well enough for the tests but I didn't agree then either.

Not in any recent post in our conversation you didn't.

I don't believe in types, categories, sorts, taxonomies, or even sets except what can be defined mathematically. I don't believe inductive reasoning is valid. Categories and taxonomies like "species" are mere mnemonics with no reference in reality. They fit our thinking and language but never reality.

There are a number of events that have taken place with some similarity of pattern across the various species of animals that have been domesticated.

YES! Each was subjected to an artificial bottleneck. Selecting only tame wolves to get dogs is functionally the same thing as killing all the vicious ones.

All observed change in all life and every group of living things is sudden. Dogs didn't evolve from wolves they arose from wolves by means of a man-made bottleneck.

 

[cladking]

All observed change in all life and every group of living things is sudden.

Even Peers change one funeral at a time when a new paradigm is born.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that idea is more for your benefit as it is to lead you to the question of whether or not there is a good god, or whether it might all be deceit in either direction. Me, I don't care, I just take the universe as I and others see it as what it is, whether there is more or not.
As for access to a Bible, I would think most people who went to Jesuit colleges probably did and his later degree in Canon Law probably required one as well.

I guess you're talking about Descartes? If so, that is probably correct about him having access to a Bible. Well, he had questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Rabbit hole.

Yes, it's amazing and on the frightening side that *some* cannot admit what they meant and/or said.
Hey! Have a good one as time moves along...ticking closer and closer to --Descartes assertion?? and/or the inevitability of some people's view of -- evolution. Take care.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm surprised you think that I don't know Evolution just because I don't agree with it. I was exposed to biology and its theories from a very young age and took courses of various types all through school. I "learned" it well enough for the tests but I didn't agree then either.

Based on everything I read of yours for the past several years, it is the only reasonable conclusion. You know some trivial things and you have used that as a base to come up with "your" biology that doesn't appear to have any correlation with actual biology.

I don't believe in types, categories, sorts, taxonomies, or even sets except what can be defined mathematically.

You do. You just make up your own and give it secret meaning.

I don't believe inductive reasoning is valid. Categories and taxonomies like "species" are mere mnemonics with no reference in reality. They fit our thinking and language but never reality.

You can believe whatever you like, but clearly you don't have evidence to support what you claim. It is pretty well-established in these threads. When asked for evidence or examples you just repeat the claim that you have provided millions and billions of examples and millions and billions of pieces of evidence. It is, of course, invisible to all by you.

YES! Each was subjected to an artificial bottleneck.

Not at all. You refuse to understand what a bottleneck is. You have commandeered the term, given it a new meaning that is really selection and fitness that your refuse to acknowledge, because your public campaign has been a futile denial of selection and fitness. It is all very amusing, but not interesting.

Selecting only tame wolves to get dogs is functionally the same thing as killing all the vicious ones.

Except they were not tame wolves, the adapted to association with humans and the wild wolves were not killed, so wrong on both accounts on the facts.

All observed change in all life and every group of living things is sudden.

Another example of how you claims of great knowledge from birth is a fiction. It isn't logical. It is inconsistent with the evidence. It is just something you dreamed up and decided was a fact.

Dogs didn't evolve from wolves they arose from wolves by means of a man-made bottleneck.

Wrong. But calling it arose instead of evolve tells me a lot. I think you recognize and accept evolution, you just don't want to admit it and you want your ideas, erroneous as they are in may aspects, to be the dominant thinking. Given your success at selling your re-invented wheel/belief system, I am not worried that it will corrode the pursuit and acquisition of valid knowledge.

This is all you have left for others by going your way. Correct you when you pop up with your empty claims and science fan fiction and move on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, it's amazing and on the frightening side that *some* cannot admit what they meant and/or said.
Hey! Have a good one as time moves along...ticking closer and closer to --Descartes assertion?? and/or the inevitability of some people's view of -- evolution. Take care.

Like not being able to admit following someone around for a year and harrassing them and then acting like they never did. That would seem to be similar to hypocrisy wouldn't you say? And it still appears it is going on.

I pray for you.