Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

Spoken by someone, who never read anything outside of scriptures.

I don't have to "research" your unfounded claim. I know it's simply not true, period. Sad. really. Indicative of your embracing of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Spoken Hebrew language, probably, Hebrew written language, as the Hebrew would not exist, until somewhere between Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age.

Spoken Hebrew language, probably, Hebrew written language, as the Hebrew would not exist, until somewhere between Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age.

At least you admit Moses spoke Hebrew (probably, as you say). Good going!
You have no actual references for your following claim about Hebrew not existing until some time around the "Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age." In fact, as I re-read your statement, it makes no sense whatsoever. So you go on and believe whatever you think without backing it up with information and recognition. You wrote, "Spoken Hebrew language, probably, Hebrew written language, as the Hebrew would not exist, until somewhere between Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age." Other than your opinion, what else do you have to offer?

 

[YoursTrue]

Where are you getting this nonsense from? No, you were demonstrably wrong. Go back and find out where. @leroy expected everyone else too. You should be aware of your own posts.

So why is it hat you do not believe in a higher intelligent person with power that you cannot see?

 

[SkepticThinker]

At least you admit Moses spoke Hebrew (probably, as you say). Good going!
You have no actual references for your following claim about Hebrew not existing until some time around the "Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age." In fact, as I re-read your statement, it makes no sense whatsoever. So you go on and believe whatever you think without backing it up with information and recognition. You wrote, "Spoken Hebrew language, probably, Hebrew written language, as the Hebrew would not exist, until somewhere between Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age." Other than your opinion, what else do you have to offer?

Moses is a fictional character in an old story.

 

[YoursTrue]

Where are you getting this nonsense from? No, you were demonstrably wrong. Go back and find out where. @leroy expected everyone else too. You should be aware of your own posts.

So according to you, it was such a slow transition from fish to monkeys that scientists cannot find the actual fish and their continuance by magic (I mean evolution) to become humans, right? Jes...not enough remains (evidence) of the particular organisms involved beyond some fossil possibilities, right? (Yes, that's right.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

So according to you, it was such a slow transition from fish to monkeys that scientists cannot find the actual fish and their continuance by magic (I mean evolution) to become humans, right? Jes...not enough remains (evidence) of the particular organisms involved beyond some fossil possibilities, right? (Yes, that's right.)

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[leroy]

It’s “her” words…”he” is really a “she”.

how do you know that?

have you run any DNA test on this person? how do you know it´s a she?

Science isn’t merely a conjecture.

A scientific theory is well-substantiated models of explanations and predictions. and the only way for a model to be “well-substantiated“, is by testing each models (individually), and such tests must include observations of the evidence or experiments, plus the data (examples of data -quantities, measurements, physical properties such as their compositions (WHAT they made of) and the mechanisms (HOW they work), etc).

Explanations without testable data, evidence or experiments, might well be conjectures.

You might consider hypothesis to be conjecture, until the hypothesis has been tested and verified as being “probable”. But hypothesis don’t become automatically accepted as science, until such hypothesis has been rigorously tested, analysed and verified.

And even then it is only a candidate of being a new “scientific theory“. There may well be another hypothesis (or more) that researching the same thing, but possibly explaining it better, or have more thorough tests.

But a scientific theory have models that been rigorously tested and analysed, as in independently tested by other scientists, then the scientific explanation is no longer merely conjecture.

That‘s not to say science is always right.

Science isn’t omniscient, isnt infallible or inerrant.

Every sciences, are learning processes, people can make mistakes, including scientists, because they themselves are humans. Even if a scientist has evidence that seems to verify his or her hypothesis, could possibly analyse the evidence or data incorrectly. But that’s what Peer Review are there for, to analyse the hypothesis, analyse the evidence and data, to find any error.

As I said, science is learning processes, and the evidence or experiments should provide some information (data) that scientists can learn from. If the scientists have made analysis that were incorrect, then he could either try to fix the hypothesis or ditch the hypothesis.

As a learning process, we can learn just from errors and failures, as much as from successes, and the reason being, is not to repeat the error.

Any person, not just talking about scientists in this paragraph, anyone who makes a mistake or error, should be able to learn from it. That should apply to anyone, including scientists. But if a person cannot learn from his mistakes, then that person is being wilfully ignorant or arrogant, because that person is allowing his or her ego & biases to dictate what they are doing.

Science isn’t about perfect knowledge, as there are no such perfection. Take astronomy for instance, it has a long history, and lot of them are wrong, and even today, there are new discoveries, and therefore new things to learn. Astronomers should learn about the past mistakes, learn from it, and do better.

She (YoursTrue) doesn’t understand that.

But in her post, she provided an example.


In what YoursTrue stated, about medicine that has been available in the US, but banned in Europe (or vice versa), might well be true…

…BUT she didn’t specify which medicine or treatment have been banned; she offered no specifics, no information whatsoever, as to why such medicine has been banned at one place or another. It is just a vague “what if” example, that may or may not be true.

It is a generalised post from YoursTrue.

Her words don’t contradict any of your statements………….she is not claiming that science is mere conjecture

 

[leroy]

Oh poop! Thanks for spoiling my fun.

how do you know it´s a she?

 

[Subduction Zone]

how do you know it´s a she?

"it's"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep making vague unfounded charges. Anyway, take care and hope your mind gets better. Thank you.

Nope, You appear to be confused. I do not do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So according to you, it was such a slow transition from fish to monkeys that scientists cannot find the actual fish and their continuance by magic (I mean evolution) to become humans, right? Jes...not enough remains (evidence) of the particular organisms involved beyond some fossil possibilities, right? (Yes, that's right.)

Nope.

 

[leroy]

Such as?

the claim that the universe (meaning all physical reality) came from nothing is more extraordinary than any miracle reported in the bible.

The claim that the universe has always existed is more extraordinary than any miracle reported in the bible

As a naturalist these are your only 2 options ……………so unless you reject naturalism you are necessarily believing in something more extraordinary than any miracle reported in the bible

 

[leroy]

Go back and read the post I was responding to where I said it's all wrong.

Ok more excuses for not answering to my request

Quote her words and explain why is she wrong

 

[leroy]

"it's"?

My mistake…………wrong pronoun

See, how easy it is for me to admit mistakes?.................

How do you know that this person is a she?

All you have is her claims of she being a female, ………….. which used to be good enough evidence for me in the past…………………but then I was told by you and your fanatic atheist friends that “claims are not evidence”

 

[ChristineM]

the claim that the universe (meaning all physical reality) came from nothing is more extraordinary than any miracle reported in the bible

From what did god fashion the universe (well earth really and it dome) ... Oh right, nothing.

The claim that the universe has always existed is more extraordinary than any miracle reported in the bible

Yet it's ok for god to have always existed.

As a naturalist these are your only 2 options

Bull, i know 32 hypothesis of how the universe could have come about. Each must be mathematically sound or based on current knowledge.


Btw
Only 2 suggest the universe came from nothing. I think i have already linked you to the math of one of them.

I am sure other people are also aware of at these hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

Bull, i know 32 hypothesis of how the universe could have come about. Each must be mathematically sound or based on current knowledge.

And all of those 32 hypotheses (if they really exist) ether: claim that the universe came from nothing or that it has always existed, (or are open for both possibilities)

My point is that for the there are only 2 possibilities

1 it has always existed

2 it came from nothing

Yet it's ok for god to have always existed.

The known laws of science (like the second law of thermodynamics) prohibit an eternal universe………..otherwise the entropy would be near to 100%

Sure you can speculate that “something happened” or that “some unknown mechanism” solved the problem………… but those speculation would be far more extraordinary than any miracle in the bible.

The laws of science say nothing about God therefore God doesn’t have need to have the same restrictions that the universe.


---

You burden is to:

1 pick one miracle in the bible

2 show that any of the 2 alternatives (the universe has always existed or the universe came from nothing) is more credible (less extraordinary) than such miracle.

 

[ChristineM]

(if they really exist)

Are you calling me a !iar?

1 it has always existed

2 it came from nothing

3 it came from something else.

The known laws of science (like the second law of thermodynamics) prohibit an eternal universe

So?

Sure you can speculate that “something happened” or that “some unknown mechanism” solved the problem………… but those speculation would be far more extraordinary than any miracle in the bible.

Not really, all the hypothesis i know have to be mathematically sound or be extrapolated from known, observed phenomenon.

Notice that... Mathematically sound or extrapolated from known, observed phenomenon. Show me one claimed miracle from the bib!e that you can actually explain in the real world.

The laws of science say nothing about God therefore God doesn’t have need to have the same restrictions that the universe.

Cop out. You have no idea what restrictions a god, if such exists, is bound by. All you are doing is making up bs to suite your bias

You burden is to:

No it isn't, see above

 

[gnostic]

how do you know that?

have you run any DNA test on this person? how do you know it´s a she?

it was just clarification for you, not for her.

Her words don’t contradict any of your statements………….she is not claiming that science is mere conjecture

error, not merely contradiction.

 

[YoursTrue]

how do you know that?

have you run any DNA test on this person? how do you know it´s a she?


Her words don’t contradict any of your statements………….she is not claiming that science is mere conjecture

"They'll" say just about anything in order to deflect from rationality. That is correct; I am not claiming that science is mere conjecture -- thank you.

 

[John53]

"They'll" say just about anything in order to deflect from rationality. That is correct; I am not claiming that science is mere conjecture -- thank you.

Only the bits you don't like