Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

What a stupid comment.

I didn't make it up...a scientific organization said it.

 

[YoursTrue]

In correct.
"haven't been reproduced in the laboratory"
There's no law of physics prohibiting eventual success.

Lol...no law of physics prohibiting eventual success you claim? You're sure of that are you?

 

[YoursTrue]

The book of Genesis is folklore, not history.

No matter what you believe about it, the narrative says first was water, then vegetation, then animals.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have had some hope, perhaps misguided, that stark criticism might inspire a reduction in the reliance on the seeming science fan fiction dogma and encourage a paradigm shift to a more rational approach. It was a Hail Mary with little chance of success.

Yes, the chances of succeeding approach zero, which is why I say that there has to be another reason to write such post. There are several for me. I don't need a response from the person quoted, which is why being on their ignore list doesn't change anything. I'm not really writing to them given the inevitable outcome of the effort. I'm writing to others like you who can assimilate new information and for my own benefit. Writing out why I know is beneficial. I gain new insights at times for the effort and discover better ways to present the same ideas. Once in a while, I might impart new information to such a person, or offer a new turn of phrase others might like.

With that attitude, there is never frustration or disappointment.

Hardest to find seems to be Mexican Oregano which I have only found online, it is apparently significantly different

My wife grows it in her garden, and tells me it's close to marjoram, but different:

"Marjoram has the closest flavor profile with the Mexican herb. Only, it has a minty sweetness to it. Though they share the same flavor notes, the difference is still very noticeable as Mexican oregano's overall flavor is quite strong. Marjoram also lacks the same peppery kick because it is simply milder in flavor."

Maybe the seeds for Mexican oregano can be purchased abroad if that's helpful, as neither regular oregano nor marjoram are really the same.

You assume I don't make sense and then parse the words so they don't make sense.

If you really believed that, why write the sentence? If it were true, I'd have transformed your meaning into something garbled and would not be able to give you this responsive reply.

You share this quality with @leroy, who also has trouble being understood, and who understands that as a failure on the other end, and so he accuses others of playing semantic games.

What a great leap forward it would be for either of you to consider that it might be you and your choices of language that are the reason you're so frequently misunderstood. I don't know why neither of you can or will, but until you do and adapt, expect this kind of thing to continue indefinitely.

This is the type of semantics games that make conversations long , tedious and boring……. We simply mean different things when we say mechanism

I don't call this a semantic game. I call this you being imprecise with language and getting frustrated over being misunderstood.

1 Yes, organism evolve by genetic variation + natural selection (what you label as mechanisms)

2 There are many mechanisms that can produce genetic variation , perhaps including mechanisms that are yet to be discovered ………. We have random mutations, epigenetics, natural genetic engineering, transposons etc. (these are all mechanisms that produce genetic variation)

3 we don’t know which of these mechanism (related to point 2) are responsible for the evolution of the eye nor the role that each mechanism had

None of these 3 points is controversial…………..If you don’t explicitly disagree with any of these 3 points I will assume that you agree

IF you think that my usage of the term mechanism is incorrect, feel free to change the term for any other term that you find more convenient

I don't dispute any of that. Too bad you didn't specify as much originally. All you wrote was mechanism, and I answered accordingly. You didn't like those answers. They weren't what you were looking for, and you redefined what you were looking for after accusing me of playing games. Genetic variation wasn't specific enough for you. You wanted the mechanisms for that discussed. Who knew? Your language was too imprecise for you to expect anybody else to know that that's what you were asking for,

Because the original objection was that I am making a special pleading fallacy………………..you then move to different objections without granting that I am not doing special pleading

Why would I grant that? I don't believe it. I told you that I consider what you're doing special pleading and why. You didn't address any of that. My argument and opinion remain unchanged. Why wouldn't they be. You'd need to offer a compelling counterargument to change it, but you don't even try. You just repeat yourself without addressing the rebuttal. I've explained to you that that's when dialectic dies, and there can be no further progress in a discussion like that without it.

It is not SP because I am arguing that the universe/multiverse, has properties that God doesn’t have ………… If I wrong then I am wrong, but it wouldn't be SP

I still disagree for reasons already given and ignored. When you address that counterargument, we might be able to proceed. If you're interested, return to these / posts and address my rebuttal to your claim.

My justification is That unlike the universe God didn’t begin to exist

Already rejected. You know neither that the universe began to exist nor that a god if it exists didn't evolve. And you're still disregarding the multiverse hypothesis. Is there a reason for that? A god and a multiverse are interchangeable in this argument. Their ONLY difference is that one is said to be sentient and volitional and the other not. Otherwise, they are the same - unevidenced, putative sources of the universe.

Because that is not what I am asking. I'm asking what you think about the first cell, living that is. It certainly can be-seems to be-connected with abiogenesis, but I'm not asking about abiogenesis.

This is also nonspecific. Nobody knows what you're asking for here, including me. What about the first cell are you asking? When it appeared? Where it appeared? What it looked like?

seems clear to me that humans moved the pyramids even though we (humans) can't figure how yet.

The proper way to word something like this is that we no evidence that the pyramids weren't built by man until somebody shows that that would be impossible or until somebody can find compelling evidence of an extraterrestrial visit or divine intervention.

 

[shunyadragon]

By the way, go argue with The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf them they're wrong, and you know the first cells have been reproduced in the laboratory if that's what you think, go ahead.

Yes it is an important advancement, Producing cells in the lab contribute to knowledge of abiogensis but incomplete. There are still unanswered questions. The goal is to reproduce abiogenesis in the equivalent natural environments of the hydrothermal vents where life began.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't make it up...a scientific organization said it.

If you say so.
Still a stupid comment, regardless of attribution.

 

[shunyadragon]

So people obviously (in my mind) built the pyramids. They didn't have electricity then. Even though people harnessed electricity later to use in machines. Since I believe in the existence of an Almighty God, I believe He allowed men to build the pyramids and also harness electricity later on.

I do not buy "allow." Yes humans built the pyramids and harnessed electricity and many advances due to science over the millennia, yes is one believes in God god create our physical existence and we evolved to produce pyramids and technology.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol...no law of physics prohibiting eventual success you claim? You're sure of that are you?

Very sure.
What laws of physics do you believe prevent abiogenesis?
Thermodynamics, particle physics, etc, etc?

 

[cladking]

If you really believed that, why write the sentence? If it were true, I'd have transformed your meaning into something garbled and would not be able to give you this responsive reply.

You share this quality with @leroy, who also has trouble being understood, and who understands that as a failure on the other end, and so he accuses others of playing semantic games.

What a great leap forward it would be for either of you to consider that it might be you and your choices of language that are the reason you're so frequently misunderstood. I don't know why neither of you can or will, but until you do and adapt, expect this kind of thing to continue indefinitely.

I have an uncanny ability to understand just about everybody. There's no "trick" to it, I simply assume they make perfect sense and I try to figure out what they must believe to say what they do. I once designed an operating system for a large automated bakery. It wasn't especially complex because there were only several main processes but there were many many pieces of equipment being controlled by it. I designed this to eliminate numerous flaws in the existing system and to give operators warning of failures and more control over every process. My programming abilities weren't up to the task so I turned it over to the software department. Upon completion my boss had software write up a memo for the operators of the changes that had been made and it was sent to me. It was two solid pages of gobbletygook. I understood none of it at all but there were numerous key words that suggested it was a synopsis of the new system. I read it over and over again until about the 12th time I recognized it as a laymen's description of the programming. Obviously it was of no use so was discarded.

This is the state of industry. The left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.

So long as you assume @leroy, me, or anyone else doesn't make sense you will pick out key words from the gobbledtygook and respond to that instead of discerning his point.

I suppose with great effort I might be able to translate what I'm saying into legalese, medical jargon, or Fortran; just about anything. But each individual here has his own knowledge base and individual perspective. Me? I'm a nexialist. I use English goodly and other than using some big words and odd turns of phrase anyone should be able to understand if they don't assume I'm stupid and confused. We all are but I hardly stand out from any crowd. I intentionally use some hard to parse sentences just to alert people that they might have already quit paying attention.

I've laid all my premises bare many times. People don't understand because A.,= they don't want to understand and B.,= what I'm saying flies in the face of the beliefs they learned when they learned language. The day they learned two popsicles are better than one they came to believe that popsicles exist and each are the same. I never learned that. If I had two popsicles I always ate the better one second because I only knew that practice makes perfect.

 

[cladking]

I read it over and over again until about the 12th time I recognized it as a laymen's description of the programming.

Our language is confused and if you don't know this you don't know you aren't communicating with people.

 

[ratiocinator]

Me? I'm a nexialist fantasist.

FIFY.

 

[cladking]

The day they learned two popsicles are better than one they came to believe that popsicles exist and each are the same. I never learned that

Even though "two" doesn't exist except as an an abstraction I still must use the word to communicate with the descendants of Babel. I must use the term to even think. It would be cumbersome and confusing to say it in another way and would not facilitate communication. I'm as stuck with modern language and modern thinking as everyone else. But I can still see experiment is not consistent with extrapolations of 19th century beliefs that were built not on experiment but on flimsy definitions and old wives tales. Still the 19th century beliefs persist in every field of science from Egyptology to cosmology; from astronomy to zoology. "2" is a concept that doesn't exist in reality. It has no referent in reality. Just because we need it to communicate and to think doesn't make it miraculously real.

 

[cladking]

As I said, and you seem to have missed; "we see not what's in front of our eyes but what's behind them.".

We are each a fantasist who creates his own world.

Me? I'm a nexialist fantasist.

 

[Valjean]

Ancient Egyptians didn't think like us. It is just this simple.

Writing was invented in 3200 BC but recorded history didn't start until 1400 years later in 1800 BC. It is ridiculous to believe writing wasn't used to write stuff down. It was written down. Everything known by homo sapiens was written down for posterity. It isn't gone because the media didn't survive as proven by the existence of papyrus from 3200 BC found in a tomb. But it was blank. Homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio (all knowing man whom reason in circles)(our species) history begins far far later because the earlier writing from before the change in language can still not be translated. This language was a metaphysical language that was binary, representational, and universal that homo sapiens used to invent agriculture using the "Theory of Change in Species". Of course their theories can't really be translated either but this is the closest we can come. They understood the nature of sudden change in life and used it to invent dogs, crops, and livestock.

Change in language? Metaphysical, binary language? What are you talking about?

They were very very very very different than we are or any Egyptologist. But this difference existed in their thinking and perceptions rather than anatomically. The difference was very natural because they used the exact same kind of science that bees and beavers use; natural science based on observation and the logic of the wiring of the brain. Homo sapien brains were operated differently because of a very tiny anatomical difference: They had only a single speech center called the wernicke's area. In order to learn language each of us must grow a second speech center which operates the brain in an entirely different mode. It might be more clear to say that we don't so much grow a brocas area as that all required wiring needed to learn modern symbolic language tends to occur in a tiny area of the inferior frontal gyrus. Just as a blind person's learning of braille usually occurs in the visual cortex at the back of the brain.

Bees and beavers don't use science. There is no hypothesis making, testing or peer review. Functional physiology or behavior is not science.
As for language development, do you have some links?

Life and reality are complicated. Deal with it. Science as well has become rather complex but people aren't dealing with that either. They ignore experiment and ignore every anomaly.

Experimentation is the Hallmark of science, and unexpected anomalies are what scientists are looking for.

One thing that isn't complex is ancient science. It's more complex than a waggle dance because homo sapiens had a complex language that allowed the generational accumulation of knowledge but bees do not. This complexity of language arose suddenly as well in 40,000 BC. It was most likely a mutation in proto-humans (homo proto sapiens?) that tied the wernickes area more closely to higher brain functions. It allowed users to observe their own consciousness better and to invent more words and more observations.

Links, por favor.

Ancient science is simply looking at reality from the outside instead of the inside while viewing knowledge from the inside. I'm making some progress in understanding it but it is difficult to see things from such a perspective. It progressed very differently than reductionistic science because there were no experiments and even setting up observation was avoided. It flowed naturally based on what had come before. It began and ended holistically and failed only because its basis, its metaphysics (the language itself) became geometrically more complex as learning improved arithematically. At first (~3500 BC) it was only a few dolts who couldn't learn the language properly but every year there were more and more who had no choice but to use a pidgin form of the universal language until by 3200 they needed to invent writing to communicate since these pidgin languages were so "confused". By 2000 BC there were no longer enough Ancient Language speakers (remember homo sapiens with one speech center) to even operate the state so Ancient Language failed and human history was lost.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Reality is far more exotic than science believers can imagine and ancient science was very complex. But then the waggle dance is probably orders of magnitude more complex than we understand. We don't even know that bees are conscious and that they use this consciousness all the time and make decisions that are best for themselves and the hive.

If it's not based on observation, hypotheses, and testing, it's not science. Instinct, physiology, trial and error, technology, practical knowledge -- not science.

 

[ratiocinator]

We are each a fantasist who creates his own world.

Speak for yourself.

I keep reading some of your posts and, it's not that they are completely unintelligible (mostly), but you appear to have created a fantasy world all of your own. Making absurd, pompous pronouncements about things that you couldn't possibly know. Most of your 'reasoning' is also self-defeating.

But don't mind me, I think you're the living, breathing embodiment of:

"Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired." -- Jonathan Swift​

As you were...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So long as you assume @leroy, me, or anyone else doesn't make sense you will pick out key words from the gobbledtygook and respond to that instead of discerning his point.

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion. If I sort through the gobbledygook and respond, that means I'm trying to understand you. The alternative would be to just post "What?"

As I said, and you seem to have missed; "we see not what's in front of our eyes but what's behind them.".

What?

That's gobbledygook to me. If only you could write in plain English instead of riddles. The comment is wrong if taken at face value, and I can't guess what it is you mean that isn't incorrect.

As long as you continue with this manner of communicating, you will have problems. Do you have any say at all in what you do? Do you have a choice here, or can you only write like that? Do you care at all?

I suppose with great effort I might be able to translate what I'm saying into legalese, medical jargon, or Fortran; just about anything. But each individual here has his own knowledge base and individual perspective.

I don't think you can. Nor would it be helpful. Plain English is the solution.

I'm a nexialist. I use English goodly and other than using some big words and odd turns of phrase anyone should be able to understand if they don't assume I'm stupid and confused.

I don't use that word stupid, but intelligence is essentially problem solving. You have a problem communicating. There is no reason to think that you are not confused. Maybe you understand yourself, and if you could articulate your position clearly, I might understand you as well. But you don't and I don't.

THIS is what intrigues me about these discussions. I'm trying to understand why you behave as you do, why you have no interest in what you're being told or suggested remedies. I understand that that might not be something you can do, but what I don't understand is why you seem to take no interest in the conclusions others offer or the excellent recommendations you're receiving. Even if you considered it bad advice, I would expect you to take interest in that discussion and say so and explain why. But you don't. I cannot even begin to identify with that. What do you care about? Are you happy with the status quo? Even if you are, why haven't you said so yet?

These are rhetorical questions. I don't expect answers. If I ever solve any of these riddles, it will be without the help of the other party. And I never have yet, although you recently helped me with the question of whether you're suffering some kind of cognitive defect or trolling when you began trolling earlier this month (at the bottom of the link, when you defined intelligence).

 

[cladking]

Experimentation is the Hallmark of science, and unexpected anomalies are what scientists are looking for.

Yes and no.

Yes, experiment is the hallmark of science but your implication they are looking for it in or with experiment isn't entirely accurate and is misleading. Anomalies form the basis of many if not most hypotheses; someone observes something that is inconsistent with existing theory.

What I am saying is that experiment is being misinterpreted and has become anomalous itself. "Survival of the fittest", gradual change in species, and consciousness being irrelevant to life and survival have been shown by decades of experiment to be in error. A new hypothesis is needed. New experimentation is necessary to show that the Bible and ancient science were closer to reality than Charles Darwin. All life at all levels changes suddenly and is always related to consciousness.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Survival of the fittest", gradual change in species, and consciousness being irrelevant to life and survival have been shown by decades of experiment to be in error.

 

[cladking]

What?

That's gobbledygook to me. If only you could write in plain English instead of riddles. The comment is wrong if taken at face value, and I can't guess what it is you mean that isn't incorrect.

As long as you continue with this manner of communicating, you will have problems. Do you have any say at all in what you do? Do you have a choice here, or can you only write like that? Do you care at all?

I can't imagine a clearer or more succinct way of summing up the last 75 years of experiment.

"We see not what's in front of our eyes but what's behind them."

Every experiment shows we see what we believe preferentially to what exists. We believe with the brain behind our eyes but we are supposed to be using observation to see what is in front of them. We by our very nature put the cart before the horse. I think therefore I am. Homo circularis rationatio. Our nature is such BECAUSE we use a confused language to operate our minds.

How many ways can I say the same thing before my meaning is taken? This is a simple concept. But we are confused by the very language that we use to communicate.

 

[ratiocinator]

How many ways can I say the same thing before my meaning is taken? This is a simple concept. But we are confused by the very language that we use to communicate.

I see exactly what you're saying, the problem is that it's all just baseless, unargued, and often ignorant assertion. No evidence, no reasoning, basically just "this is how things are because I say so, and I'm right, so there! Why won't you agree with me?"

It's all too silly for words, yet on you go, post after post, after post. Baseless assertions do not become more believable with repetition.

FFS! What am I doing!? What's the point? I was successfully ignoring your nonsense up to now.