Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[F1fan]

Earlier one was talking about the Universal Laws, now one has left that idea, right, please?

Law as used in science means the consistent patterns that energy/matter behaves.

Law in human society means how humans behave.

The difference is that the laws of nature are fixed and don't change, nor can matter defy the laws, as creationists suggest with their supernatural beings perfoming magic. Creationists need to show that matter defies the laws of nature, but they can't show us any examples. Nor can creationists show that anything created or caused the laws to come about. The most likely scenario is that energy has always existed in some form or anothers, and the laws are part of the energy as it exists. It's all a package deal.

You seem to be confusing the way the word law is used in science, that being how you can can break laws all you want, so why can't matter.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You seem to be confusing the way the word law is used in science, that being how you can break laws all you want, so why can't matter.

That happens a lot with creationists, doesn't it? For them, law implies lawgiver, creation implies a creator, and design implies a designer. Change these to nature and its ways and patterns, and all of that baggage of implied agency and intent disappears.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Law as used in science means the consistent patterns that energy/matter behaves.

Law in human society means how humans behave.

The difference is that the laws of nature are fixed and don't change, nor can matter defy the laws, as creationists suggest with their supernatural beings perfoming magic. Creationists need to show that matter defies the laws of nature, but they can't show us any examples. Nor can creationists show that anything created or caused the laws to come about. The most likely scenario is that energy has always existed in some form or anothers, and the laws are part of the energy as it exists. It's all a package deal.

You seem to be confusing the way the word law is used in science, that being how you can can break laws all you want, so why can't matter.

A simple phrase to remember is: Physical laws are descriptive, human laws are proscriptive.

No one is telling a rock that it has to fall down and it will get a ticket if it does not do so. We know that it will fall down. Where human laws have a some body telling others what they can and cannot do and enforce that fines, penalties, or even jail time.

 

[F1fan]

That happens a lot with creationists, doesn't it? For them, law implies lawgiver, creation implies a creator, and design implies a designer. Change these to nature and its ways and patterns, and all of that baggage of implied agency and intent disappears.

It's no mistake that they grab onto certain definitions that will distort what science reports, or what reason concludes. There is a culture of disinformation among creationists that they spread to each other, and at the same time ignore what educated folks explain about science. What I am not sure about is if our creationist friends are doing this deliberately, or habitually, or a bit of both. Something is causing an impulse in them to reject science for non-rational reasons. Is it just bad luck of social influence like my Baptist cousins, but not my Catholic cousins? Is it a defect in some brains? We see reformed religious extremists, so I suspect creationism is a social phenomenon that takes advantage of gullible minds at some point in their development, and it might stick, or it might be something that is outgrown. I can't understand how otherwise intelligent adults can't, or refuse, to ackowledge thay they have a false view of reality and make the decision to adjust their beliefs to conform to a factual and conclusive understanding.

The irony is that if their idea of design is valid, it still doesn't explain how they came to a conclusion without evidence. But also, why would design include human minds so gullible to false inflormation, as we observe in many non-religious judgments? Either way it is a no-win situation for the ID crowd.

 

[Pogo]

It's no mistake that they grab onto certain definitions that will distort what science reports, or what reason concludes. There is a culture of disinformation among creationists that they spread to each other, and at the same time ignore what educated folks explain about science. What I am not sure about is if our creationist friends are doing this deliberately, or habitually, or a bit of both. Something is causing an impulse in them to reject science for non-rational reasons. Is it just bad luck of social influence like my Baptist cousins, but not my Catholic cousins? Is it a defect in some brains? We see reformed religious extremists, so I suspect creationism is a social phenomenon that takes advantage of gullible minds at some point in their development, and it might stick, or it might be something that is outgrown. I can't understand how otherwise intelligent adults can't, or refuse, to ackowledge thay they have a false view of reality and make the decision to adjust their beliefs to conform to a factual and conclusive understanding.

The irony is that if their idea of design is valid, it still doesn't explain how they came to a conclusion without evidence. But also, why would design include human minds so gullible to false inflormation, as we observe in many non-religious judgments? Either way it is a no-win situation for the ID crowd.

Your thoughts are of the devil and overcoming the social pressure in dogmatic societies is really hard, first you have to have access to the information, then you have to overcome the cognitive dissonance due to your upbringing and then you have to decide if you want to out yourself to those closest to you.

 

[F1fan]

Your thoughts are of the devil and overcoming the social pressure in dogmatic societies is really hard, first you have to have access to the information, then you have to overcome the cognitive dissonance due to your upbringing and then you have to decide if you want to out yourself to those closest to you.

So you think creationists are more of a hive mind than autonomus? That would support why they are unable to make independent judgments that critical thinkers take for granted.

 

[Pogo]

So you think creationists are more of a hive mind than autonomus? That would support why they are unable to make independent judgments that critical thinkers take for granted.

Yup because if they break the chain, they typically go all the way to atheism as the in-between points still have too much of the hive about them.

 

[Eli G]

What I think is that evolutionists use many bots, because they have no evidence that the evolution of species really happened...

So they console themselves with bots programmed to disqualify and personally attack others. If they didn't engage in attacking, then they would have to explain, and they can't do that without any proof.

 

[Eli G]

Anyone can check it for themselves: collect 40 posts from evolutionists and check which of them does not have a personal disqualification.

You will be surprised to see that not even one of them is a response to a topic of debate. They are all personal disqualifications, smoke screens and other fallacies. Surprised? Now you know the truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue

Are humans still evolving?

For much of nature, natural selection and ‘survival of the fittest’ still play a dominant role; only the strongest can survive in the wild. As little as a few hundred years ago, the same was true for humans.

www.yourgenome.org

At certain point in time i belive that we will not be the same as today.

DNA is by far the most complex language that is not human.

If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2m long and all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System.

That tells me something different than it apparently it tells you. But that's what makes the world go round in a manner of speaking, as it is said. As far as becoming something different (not be the same as today), I know my body relates that I'm getting older. Yet I believe what the Bible says, that one day those allowed to live by God's providence will regain vigor and strength and become healthy. Sicknesses and infirmities removed. By, of course, a wonderful God with eternal power. That is my belief.
Isaiah 65: 21They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22No longer will they build houses for others to inhabit,
nor plant for others to eat.
For as is the lifetime of a tree,
so will be the days of My people,
and My chosen ones will fully enjoy
the work of their hands.

Revelation 21:1-4
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying:
“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man,
and He will dwell with them.
They will be His people,
and God Himself will be with them as their God.b
4‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,
and there will be no more death
or mourning or crying or pain,
for the former things have passed away.”

 

[YoursTrue]

Some monkeys have already become apes. You and I, who are apes, have monkey ancestors.

Also, your comment was unrelated to the one you quoted, which was, "The science of genetics is the basis for one of the planks of the theory, namely, the existence of heritability and genetic variation. The other is natural selection."

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It's that which you'd rather believe that has been successfully refuted. Creationism enjoys the same status as flat-earthism and for the same reason: the revelations of scientific inquiry. For whatever reason, a pesky contingent of believers in each continues to exist but are marginalized.

Some monkeys have already become apes? what apes? and what monkeys? Old age monkeys? They became apes? They were not apes before that?
You may think or believe that humans have monkey ancestors, but that again does not make humans monkeys. Unless of course that is how your scientific principles guide your thinking. You might as well say humans are bonobos or chimpanzees. If that's how you see it, that's how you see it --
"Can a human be a chimpanzee?
There are documented cases of Soviet experiments in the 1920s where artificial insemination was attempted using female chimps and human sperm. However, none of these experiments resulted in a pregnancy, much less the birth of a 'humanzee'.
Is it possible for humans and chimpanzees to interbreed?

What I think is that evolutionists use many bots, because they have no evidence that the evolution of species really happened...

So they console themselves with bots programmed to disqualify and personally attack others. If they didn't engage in attacking, then they would have to explain, and they can't do that without any proof.

Well, now I am finding out that some here do believe, say, and think that monkeys are humans, or better yet, humans are monkeys. (lol)
sciencefocus.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Anyone can check it for themselves: collect 40 posts from evolutionists and check which of them does not have a personal disqualification.

You will be surprised to see that not even one of them is a response to a topic of debate. They are all personal disqualifications, smoke screens and other fallacies. Surprised? Now you know the truth.

The claim that some here make that humans are monkeys supplements the idea that especially those here claiming to know and believe the theory of evolution really are not making sense. And of course, those evolutionists who know better will likely stay in the background (hidden). While DNA similarities are there (scientifically speaking, of course) between chimpanzees and humans, that does not mean that chimpanzees are humans.

Comparing Chimp, Bonobo and Human DNA | AMNH

Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA. How can they be so alike - yet so different?

www.amnh.org

 

[Eli G]

Well, now I am finding out that some here do believe, say, and think that monkeys are humans, or better yet, humans are monkeys. (lol)
sciencefocus.com

Now you're finding????
Oh, wait for it. For about killihundreds posts they will be trying to convince you that you're an ape. It's what they do: try to convince people of what they believe ... kind of preaching some doctrines.

 

[Pogo]

Some monkeys have already become apes? what apes? and what monkeys? Old age monkeys? They became apes? They were not apes before that?
You may think or believe that humans have monkey ancestors, but that again does not make humans monkeys. Unless of course that is how your scientific principles guide your thinking. You might as well say humans are bonobos or chimpanzees. If that's how you see it, that's how you see it --
"Can a human be a chimpanzee?
There are documented cases of Soviet experiments in the 1920s where artificial insemination was attempted using female chimps and human sperm. However, none of these experiments resulted in a pregnancy, much less the birth of a 'humanzee'.
Is it possible for humans and chimpanzees to interbreed?

Well, now I am finding out that some here do believe, say, and think that monkeys are humans, or better yet, humans are monkeys. (lol)
sciencefocus.com

Backsliding to yet another strawman and denial of any understanding of evolution or the theory.
No-one is claiming that we can interbreed with distant cousins, you have already had speciation explained to you many times.
Sad.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your thoughts are of the devil and overcoming the social pressure in dogmatic societies is really hard, first you have to have access to the information, then you have to overcome the cognitive dissonance due to your upbringing and then you have to decide if you want to out yourself to those closest to you.

You don't believe mother goose exists and probably not an unseen person like a devil so why bring it up? Unless, of course, you believe monkeys are humans, and/or bonobos are humans also.
'Comparing Chimp, Bonobo and Human DNA | AMNH

 

[YoursTrue]

Backsliding to yet another strawman and denial of any understanding of evolution or the theory.
No-one is claiming that we can interbreed with distant cousins, you have already had speciation explained to you many times.
Sad.

Are you claiming that monkeys are humans?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you claiming that monkeys are humans?

Well, do you understand the difference between moneys and great apes. And what is an chimpanzee and what is a human?

 

[Pogo]

Are you claiming that monkeys are humans?

No, the cart goes behind the horse.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now you're finding????
Oh, wait for it. For about killihundreds posts they will be trying to convince you that you're an ape. It's what they do: try to convince people of what they believe ... kind of preaching some doctrines.

Well, let's see what comes out...do the ones embracing evolution here say monkeys or bonobos are humans? lol -- if not, why not? and of course, if they do, why? Yet some of them are promoting the idea that humans are monkeys -- lol! So then == are such ones saying monkeys are humans? How about chimps -- are chimps humans since they have such close DNA?

Comparing Chimp, Bonobo and Human DNA | AMNH

Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA. How can they be so alike - yet so different?

www.amnh.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, let's see what comes out...do the ones embracing evolution here say monkeys or bonobos are humans? lol -- if not, why not? and of course, if they do, why? Yet some of them are promoting the idea that humans are monkeys -- lol! So then == are such ones saying monkeys are humans? How about chimps -- are chimps humans since they have such close DNA?

Comparing Chimp, Bonobo and Human DNA | AMNH

Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA. How can they be so alike - yet so different?

www.amnh.org

Well, Bonobos are also not monkeys.