Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

You obviously don't know what a miracle is, and you obviously don't know what an atheist is. Anything else you're ignorant of?

Well since @Eli G went on vacation 3 months ago, do you have a reason to be interrupting the current path of this thread?

 

[Dimi95]

The article speaks for itself. I really can't see why there's an argument about it since it's a statement of science. No one knows how the first cell came about.

Have you checked anything related to that topic? And how it may have happend?

 

[Pogo]

I've noticed that contradiction a number of times along with a few others. There was one in this last batch of posts. I noted it, but now I can't recall it. It was a different one. The posts are all over the place and double back, so it is sometimes difficult to find things. You get a quote of what someone has posted, but the response doesn't have anything to do with the quoted material.

If I tried to make it confusing on purpose, I don't think I could do so good a job.

I don't see politics in your future either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is not "greatness". It is not "intelligence". There is no such thing as intelligence IMO, remember?

You've made mention of that. It is not something I subscribe to and I don't know why anyone would, but you do and that is that.

I was just unlucky enough to start with all the right assumptions and reasoned in a circle to my assumptions because that is what we do.

I don't know that. What I understand is different than this appears to be.

What assumptions? How do you know they are right? What does that mean? If something is right, then is it really an assumption? Isn't it just a fact then?

I assumed that reality exists, cause precedes effect, and everyone makes sense.

Does everyone make sense? You disagree with a lot of people on here. Presumably, you don't think everyone of them makes sense. You keep telling anyone that responds to you that they are not making sense to you.

Many in the past would have discovered this and Sir Isaac Newton himself translated a critical document that I had at my disposal but he lacked google.

I have no idea what this is supposed to tell me.

Nobody has the depth and breadth of knowledge to understand ancient science so it required tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of searches.

I don't know that there is anyone that can understand something not known to exist.

Even a telephone wouldn't have been fast enough to do these searches.

Again, shaking my head wondering what this is supposed to mean.

It required a working search engine which existed between about 2002 and 2012.

What required a search engine? If it can be searched for, doesn't it already exist?

Just so you understand I don't believe I understand ancient science.

You can bet the house on that. I don't know that I think anyone understands things not known to exist.

I believe I understand its metaphysics but the science itself I don't understand much better than a four year old would have understood.

Again, I can't imagine what I'm supposed to do with a claim that someone understands the metaphysics of something unevidenced. To me, it would be like claiming to know the metaphysics of of purple, pineapple-flavored, alien cooking.

This does give me two metaphysics and suggests that the inventors of agriculture didn't believe in "Evolution" and instead used the theory of change in species.

Nothing. I don't have anything to say here other than it is all unevidenced with nothing for me to know to draw a conclusion other than gobbledygook. Presumably, people recognized change, but I don't know of any evidence to say one way or the other what was known about biological evolution 15,000 years ago. Likely, not much.

People today believe science operates on genius which truly is a belief in miracles.

I get the impression that is what you believe. I don't know of a reason I or others might believe this. It just seems like hyperbole that doesn't tell me anything useful.

Only Newton supports such a miracle since he was so far ahead of his time. Mebbe the apple doesn't get enough credit though. Certainly the shoulders on which he stood don't get enough credit. The calculus was coming with or without him and when this is factored out he wasn't quite so far ahead of his time.

OK. Whatever you say. You think Newton was intelligent. I get that.

By the way, what is "science fan fiction"? Am I a science fan?

I see. I missed the main of this post earlier. Well, I hope that I've answered your question. I try to be as obtuse, misleading and present lots of confusing gobbledygook as I witnessed. My previous response should cover this sufficiently.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't see politics in your future either.

I thank God for that.

I wouldn't do well in politics anyway. I have this noticeable impediment about honesty and duty that would ruin my future in politics before it got out of the gate.

 

[Pogo]

I am only saying that scientists cannot say for certain what the first cell was, or where it came from.

And neither can you so what is your point or is this just another defense of your "you don't know everything so my interpretation of an ancient story is just as valid"
We get that, it is called faith, we grant it to you, but it makes for lousy conversation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists don't know how the first cell or cells came about. But I appreciate the idea they are honest in that the article mentions they don't know.

At one time, scientists and physicians didn't know that organs could be transplanted from one person to another either. At one time, scientists didn't know that bacteria, viruses and prions were the agents of disease. At one time or another there were lots of things that were not known that now are.

What conclusion do you make of this ignorance about the specifics of the earliest living cells?

 

[Pogo]

Do you dispute that experiment shows we see what we believe. I've googled this for people before and posted the results.

No, this is a bastardization of understanding of studies of perception.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And neither can you so what is your point or is this just another defense of your "you don't know everything so my interpretation of an ancient story is just as valid"
We get that, it is called faith, we grant it to you, but it makes for lousy conversation.

God of the gaps is a fairly common fallacy.

 

[Pogo]

The article speaks for itself. I really can't see why there's an argument about it since it's a statement of science. No one knows how the first cell came about.

Yes we are very familiar with your interpretation of non-absolute language and also well cognizant that you have nothing better to counter it.

Carry on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Give that man a cigar!!!

I am describing a new simpler paradigm to explain the last 75 years of experiment as well as the first 500 years.

Good for you. Perhaps you will present this in some way that it can be understood.

And I've done so. You couldn't see it.

All you have done is claim that consciousness is life. That isn't a definition. It is a meaningless declaration. It doesn't answer questions or form the basis of a decent hypothesis or fit any evidence I'm aware of.

The latter.

What?

 

[Pogo]

Give that man a cigar!!!

I am describing a new simpler paradigm to explain the last 75 years of experiment as well as the first 500 years.

Well then, I think it is time for you to state the axioms that you are using so that we can potentially agree on them.

And I've done so. You couldn't see it.

Maybe you should do it again then with more detail for the great unwashed. If you wish us to see?
Maybe you are just an old man shouting at clouds.

The latter.

Interesting, I just made the pidgin latin term up, how do any of us know what it means?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes and I meant to thank you. I woke at 3am because my hands were aching, normally I get up but I read the article and fell back asleep about 4. I can recommend it for insomnia.

ha, very funny. But! anyway -- that is what the science says --

 

[YoursTrue]

Good for you. Perhaps you will present this in some way that it can be understood.

All you have done is claim that consciousness is life. That isn't a definition. It is a meaningless declaration. It doesn't answer questions or form the basis of a decent hypothesis or fit any evidence I'm aware of.

What?

I don't think it's meaningless although even scientists realize they can or might use more precise terminology when describing things. I expect the insults to come forth now. From uh -- now let's see...LOL...I might just stop reading some of these posts but I think the insults and rancor would be there...

 

[YoursTrue]

Well then, I think it is time for you to state the axioms that you are using so that we can potentially agree on them.

Maybe you should do it again then with more detail for the great unwashed. If you wish us to see?
Maybe you are just an old man shouting at clouds.
View attachment 94381

Interesting, I just made the pidgin latin term up, how do any of us know what it means?

Not sure if it's an axiom, but do you agree that "science" does not know what the first cell was?

 

[Pogo]

God of the gaps is a fairly common fallacy.

Which I find often correlates with depth of faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you keep saying and I'm yet to see anyone disagree. I have a feeling you will tell me again.

Nah, I can't/won't tell you again BUT -- you said you asked twice and I didn't answer. So i answered again, perhaps in a way you better understood. Hey, have a good one.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think it's meaningless although even scientists realize they can or might use more precise terminology when describing things. I expect the insults to come forth now. From uh -- now let's see...LOL...I might just stop reading some of these posts but I think the insults and rancor would be there...

No insult but since you find meaning there, maybe you could enlighten us?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think it's meaningless although even scientists realize they can or might use more precise terminology when describing things.

What does the claim tell us about consciousness? What does the claim tell us about life? How does the statement define meaning for the words life and consciousness?

I expect the insults to come forth now.

Thanks for the heads up. You don't have to, but I'd be interested to see your efforts.

From uh -- now let's see...LOL...I might just stop reading some of these posts but I think the insults and rancor would be there...

What is more insulting? To provide claims with evidence in hopes that a discussion might arise to stimulate understanding and advance knowledge or to make empty claims and treat others like idiots for asking questions or pointing out the flaws in the methodology? Is it insulting to provide the assumptions of the theory of evolution and explain those assumptions (I've done this) or is it insulting to claim to have provided them and demonstrated they are all false, when no evidence indicates that has ever happened?

If I make a logical fallacy and someone points that out and explains it, have they insulted me or done me a service? I'm trying to understand what you consider to be insults.

 

[Pogo]

Not sure if it's an axiom, but do you agree that "science" does not know what the first cell was?

It is not and you do?