Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[gnostic]

Not necessarily, the grain of sand could have been moving in circles …….If you prove to me that the grain moved 1cm yesterday, that observation by itself wouldn’t show that the grain will eventually circle the earth……………(additional evidence is required)

that was just a metaphor, to illustrate a point…You realises that, don’t you?

You weren’t meant to take it literally

 

[leroy]

And yet we see big changes all around us.
There was a time when no life existed on Earth. Now we see it.
Most of the species we see in the world didn't exist in the past. Where did they come from?
Many (most) ancient species no longer exist. What happened to them?

yes granted.............Organisms obviously evolved trough mechanisms that produced small changes, that accumulated over time to produce big changes…………we simply don’t know yet which mechanisms where those nor the role that each mechanisms played

The only uncontroversial claim that I made is that the presence of a mechanism that produces small changes, doesn’t automatically proves that over time it also produced big changes. (additional evidence is needed)

Just to close this nonsense that was never intended to long and boring

1 there are many known mechanism that cause small changes (but not necesairly big changes)

2 we don’t know (yet) which of those mechanisms (+ perhaps other unknown mechanisms) are responsible for the big changes nor how big of a role did each mechanisms played in say the evolution of the eye……………..we know that the eye evolved somehow ….we just don’t know how

Agree?

Would you add or remove anything?

Can we stop this nonsense?

 

[gnostic]

Yes. I believe 40,000 years ago proto-humans had a very simple animal language and a single speech center (Wernicke's area). It probably employed about 2000 words but it was like computer language and nothing at all like what we speak. An individual arose (I know only as "Sah" but might underlie the concept of "Adam" in the Bible) whom had a mutation tying the speech center to higher brain functions. This allowed much more ability to manipulate both language and human knowledge but more importantly it allowed humans to pass down knowledge generationally leading to the ability to learn from past masters,. As knowledge increased the complexity and vocabulary soared. About 3200 BC language became so complex that the less witted were having great difficulty speaking it at all. So to communicate with the few who spoke a pidgin form of the language that was just like our language writing had to be invented. As time went by there were not enough people speaking Ancient Language to even operate the state so in a world wide event the official language was changed to the many different pidgin languages and confusion arose. So did "homo omnisciencis". The few surviving Ancient Language speakers were known as "Nephilim" but they died out (homo sapiens went extinct) about 1400 BC.

you are still spinning this tiresome make-believe fantasy of yours?

 

[Pogo]

The original point that I made relevant to the discussion is that evidence for small changes by itself doesn’t automatically show that big changes occur (additional evidence is requires)

Which is a so what in that no-one except you seems to think that that idea is anything but a trivial truism.

Since you didn’t object to this point, I am assuming that you agree…………

Rational people do not object to trivial truisms and so drawing conclusions from that lack of objection is not useful in an argument.

"A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device, and is the opposite of falsism. In philosophy, a sentence which asserts incomplete truth conditions for a proposition may be regarded as a truism. Wikipedia"

In this quote from a few minutes ago it is obvious that you are asserting that RM and NS are the only mechanisms

What is obvious to you is not obvious to others,
I will here state that the above is a truism.

I said

you replied:

Yes I did and your conclusion is in no way logically justified from the statements at hand which is entirely the problem.
You have your own incoherent logic that does not comport with any rational logic no matter how many times we explain the weaknesses and mistakes in it.

 

[leroy]

STOP it, already! It's just an analogy. I'm sure you can see my point. Small changes can accumulate into big changes.

And I never said the opposite

No. That's demonstrable nonsense. Puppies in a litter are all different -- and it's not due to mutation.
A single variation: longer hair or legs, or smaller size, can confer definite benefits -- or disadvantages.

And I never said the opposite

. There are multiple mechanisms of evolution.

And I never said the opposite (pogo did)


So I am stock, can you quote any claim made by me that you would disagree with?..........if not, I will assume that there is no disagreement

Sorry, not following.

I am accusing internet atheist (and calling them a cult) for not admitting mistakes nor correcting other atheist when they make mistakes………………. If you correct pogo (who claims that RM and NS is the only mechanism) you would show that I am wrong for wrongly accusing internet atheist

 

[Pogo]

that was just a metaphor, to illustrate a point…You realises that, don’t you?

You weren’t meant to take it literally

But if literal it could be deemed to be false and any potential falsehood is taken by @leroy as an admission that he is correct in all of his assertions.

It is an interesting logic, but he is consistent in it.

 

[Pogo]

yes granted.............Organisms obviously evolved trough mechanisms that produced small changes, that accumulated over time to produce big changes…………we simply don’t know yet which mechanisms where those nor the role that each mechanisms played

The only uncontroversial claim that I made is that the presence of a mechanism that produces small changes, doesn’t automatically proves that over time it also produced big changes. (additional evidence is needed)

Just to close this nonsense that was never intended to long and boring

1 there are many known mechanism that cause small changes (but not necesairly big changes)

2 we don’t know (yet) which of those mechanisms (+ perhaps other unknown mechanisms) are responsible for the big changes nor how big of a role did each mechanisms played in say the evolution of the eye……………..we know that the eye evolved somehow ….we just don’t know how

Agree?

Would you add or remove anything?

Can we stop this nonsense?

Any time you want to stop running around with the goal-posts.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not my opinion. The evidence is everywhere. You choose not to seek it, and to ignore it when it's presented.

No sir you choose to believe that opinion as if it happened by chance. Ok.

 

[leroy]

Which is a so what in that no-one except you seems to think that that idea is anything but a trivial truism.

Rational people do not object to trivial truisms and so drawing conclusions from that lack of objection is not useful in an argument.

"A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device, and is the opposite of falsism. In philosophy, a sentence which asserts incomplete truth conditions for a proposition may be regarded as a truism. Wikipedia"

What is obvious to you is not obvious to others,
I will here state that the above is a truism.

Yes I did and your conclusion is in no way logically justified from the statements at hand which is entirely the problem.
You have your own incoherent logic that does not comport with any rational logic no matter how many times we explain the weaknesses and mistakes in it.

In sumery I said

It is naive to claim that organisms evolves just by RM and NS

You replied

Ohh why are you calling me “naïve”

From your reply it is obvious that you where asserting that organisms evolved by RM and NS…………..why don’t you simply admit your mistake (maybe it was just a typo or maybe you misread my claim)

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you made a mistake?

 

[cladking]

If change in species really occurred as Darwin and Evolutionists believe there would be a utter cacophony of species where many individuals took one path others took other paths. Why should we presume that every whale would suddenly start evolving along the same path since niches vary everywhere. There would be so many species many individuals would and die without seeing another of its own species except for parents and siblings and no matter how fit it is could not reproduce.

This doesn't exist because change occurs at bottlenecks. The few survivors create a new species. This is the only observed cause of change in species. We have both dogs and wolves because man didn't kill all the wolves and merely created an artificial bottleneck by selecting only the tamest wolves. Nature sometimes kills all of a species except a few that are different than the rest and a new species arises.

All change is sudden. The belief that consensus is right by definition would require a miracle. Yet most people and many peers believe in the infallibility of Peers. They will not entertain the notion that any holier than thou might be wrong. They won't entertain notions like they are being lied to by those paid to present the news or that science is bought and sold in DC. They can't even imagine that someday everything peers believe will be rewritten or wholly overturned despite the fact this has always occurred and usually suddenly at a funeral.

 

[Pogo]

And I never said the opposite



And I never said the opposite

And I never said the opposite (pogo did)


So I am stock, can you quote any claim made by me that you would disagree with?..........if not, I will assume that there is no disagreement



I am accusing internet atheist (and calling them a cult) for not admitting mistakes nor correcting other atheist when they make mistakes………………. If you correct pogo (who claims that RM and NS is the only mechanism) you would show that I am wrong for wrongly accusing internet atheist

Please stop lying, I asked you if you could provide a mechanism besides RM+NS or a sky daddy and you admitted not, therefore I concluded that you were admitting that your belief that RM+NS was not sufficient was based on your desire for a sky daddy.

I never claimed that RM+NS was entirely sufficient.

Stop reading into others responses what you wish to see and limit yourself to what they say. It is your primary failure which leads to your assumption that we are implying agreement with your assertions.

 

[Pogo]

No sir you choose to believe that opinion as if it happened by chance. Ok.

That opinion was never asserted, it very well could have been a powerful Pixie, but the evidence is that it happened in a manner indistinguishable with that which scientists are proposing.

You are welcome to provide evidence for an alternate interpretation or evidence for the thus far unevidenced Pixie.

 

[leroy]

The current sciences are genetics that were originally based on Mendel’s framework, not on Lamarkinian’s model. And the Mendelian inheritance, expanded as we understand molecular biology, especially proteins and nucleic acids…these two macromolecules worked together in the cells, to form life, to reproduce and to pass on traits to new generations.

Evolution is mainly about the diversity of the populations, Natural Selection is just of several different types of evolutionary and genetic mechanisms. Mutations is the other mechanism, as are changes to the frequency of alleles (Genetic Drift), is another mechanism. Two or more populations of different species intermixing that produce hybrid species (Gene Flow). Genetic Hitchhiking is where changes to genes of one population may result in changes to genes of nearby population(s).

Like Mendelian genetics have been expanded and updated, as biologists understand more about genes and DNA, likewise Natural Selection has modernised, going beyond Darwin’s original framework, due to new information.

Lamarkinian Evolution is outdated models that no one used today, so why bring up something that is obsolete?

Ok and how about refuting (or explicitly granting) anything that i have said?

I think it is simply a tactics to distract members that you really have no viable alternative to the models of Evolution. You want to get rid of Evolution anyway you possibly can, even if have to resort reviving defunct theory…it is sort of like you are asking people to reverted back to debunked Flat Earth or back to the Geometric Planetary system of Ptolemy.

Like 99+% of relevant scholars I grant evolution……………I grant that organisms evolve, but I don’t claim to know exactly how did they evolve, nor what mechanisms where involved, nor the role that each mechanisms played



All I am saying is that observing small changes cause by some mechanism by itself doesn’t prove that big changes also occur by that same mechanism (additional evidence is needed)………….. this is not supposed to be controversial nor hard to understand

 

[Pogo]

In sumery I said

It is naive to claim that organisms evolves just by RM and NS

You replied

Ohh why are you calling me “naïve”

From your reply it is obvious that you where asserting that organisms evolved by RM and NS…………..why don’t you simply admit your mistake (maybe it was just a typo or maybe you misread my claim)

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you made a mistake?

Because you are naive and keep making statements that you cannot support.

The statement did not mean that I believed what you concluded but that you were naive to think that that was even what was being claimed.
Stop concluding things based on your feelings about others meaning.

This might be a Spanish - English language culture problem, but that is only part of it.

 

[leroy]

I never claimed that RM+NS was entirely sufficient.

Ok but do you understand that anyone who reads your comment, would be justified in concluding that you do make such assertion.

I mean if I say

Fat people eat chocolates

And you reply

Why are you calling me fat?



Would it be obviously that you are implying that you eat chocolates?



again in summery
I said
it is naive to say that RM and NS are the only mechanisms

you reply
why are you calling me (us) naive


Which of the 2 statements is a lie or a missrepresentation?

 

[Pogo]

If change in species really occurred as Darwin and Evolutionists believe there would be a utter cacophony of species where many individuals took one path others took other paths. Why should we presume that every whale would suddenly start evolving along the same path since niches vary everywhere. There would be so many species many individuals would and die without seeing another of its own species except for parents and siblings and no matter how fit it is could not reproduce.

This doesn't exist because change occurs at bottlenecks. The few survivors create a new species. This is the only observed cause of change in species. We have both dogs and wolves because man didn't kill all the wolves and merely created an artificial bottleneck by selecting only the tamest wolves. Nature sometimes kills all of a species except a few that are different than the rest and a new species arises.

All change is sudden. The belief that consensus is right by definition would require a miracle. Yet most people and many peers believe in the infallibility of Peers. They will not entertain the notion that any holier than thou might be wrong. They won't entertain notions like they are being lied to by those paid to present the news or that science is bought and sold in DC. They can't even imagine that someday everything peers believe will be rewritten or wholly overturned despite the fact this has always occurred and usually suddenly at a funeral.

Any idea how many species there are? Ever heard of one that only lives in the London Subway?
Start over here. Evolution 101

 

[SkepticThinker]

The way I understand the term is that an Agnostic is someone who doesn’t know if God excist or not and is more less on the 50%s rage.

If you affirm that one possition is more likely than the other, I would call you an agnostic and you do have a burden proof………..you have to provide the reasons for why you think that one position is more likeñy than the other

A/gnosticism speaks to knowledge.
A\theism speaks to belief.

There is no "50%s rage" anywhere in there. That's a claim about probability that is just made up.

 

[cladking]

The few surviving Ancient Language speakers were known as "Nephilim" but they died out (homo sapiens went extinct) about 1400 BC.

The population would have decreased because some children couldn't learn the language beyond a five year old's comprehension and many would be sent off to live with homo omnisciencis. They still had to grow food and deal with day to day life which would get more complex as population decreased. Eventually the few survivors would probably just learn pidgin language. Humans are a social animal. Smaller and smaller populations are not conducive to success.

If the very means you use to understand reality begins to fail on an individual basis then you are doomed and homo sapiens knew it. They left us ample clues and ample evidence to see them but there is a massive language barrier. Even worse their reality was holistic and ours is reductionistic. We can't see the clues and we did we'd explain it away as superstition and nonsense from stinky footed bumkins. We simply dismiss as gobbledty gook everything ever said by the inventors of agriculture; the greatest imposition of numerous artificial bottlenecks the world has ever seen.

It's simply a miracle that ancient humans survived on ignorance and superstition. Our scientists tell us that shared ignorance and shared beliefs are good survival characteristics. They tell us that methodology that employs no experiment is OK if you have enough assumptions that are apparent. They believe in all sorts of miracles from abiogenesis to the ability to understand life without even defining their own consciousness.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I like the word morph better than evolve in this case.
Ha ha, I like your last sentences. Very funny.

Why would you just use the proper word for it so there's no confusion? Does evolution scare you that much that you can't even use the word?

 

[Pogo]

Ok but do you understand that anyone who reads your comment, would be justified in concluding that you do make such assertion.

I mean if I say

Fat people eat chocolates

And you reply

Why are you calling me fat?



Would it be obviously that you are implying that you eat chocolates?



again in summery
I said
it is naive to say that RM and NS are the only mechanisms

you reply
why are you calling me (us) naive


Which of the 2 statements is a lie or a missrepresentation?

To the first, no that is not a valid conclusion only at best one of numerous possibilities.
Which is the same problem as the second case where you are assuming only one and your preferred possibility.

Stop creating false dichotomies.