Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

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

There are millions of species.

There would be quadrillions if Evolutionists were right.

 

[Pogo]

There are millions of species.

There would be quadrillions if Evolutionists were right.

calculations please?

 

[cladking]

There are millions of species.

There are so many species because there are also local bottlenecks

 

[SkepticThinker]

it's rather sad that atheists cannot make up their minds where they stand. they keep shifting goals posts and they finally say one person cannot represent all atheists because of various views that's we cant take you guys seriously.

lets test your resolve here with a question;
is morality objective or relative?

I find it rather sad that you've so far, not even attempted to respond to the actual substance of any post, and instead have used your response to just (wrongly) tell atheists what they think.

 

[Pogo]

There are so many species because there are also local bottlenecks

Which has what to do with that which you disagreed with in HS?

 

[Pogo]

Which has what to do with that which you disagreed with in HS?

I'll save you some trouble, bottleneck has a specific meaning in evolutionary biology and it is not what you are using it for.

Evolution 101

evolution.berkeley.edu

look it up in the above.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@Valjean Said(or implied) that in the context of evolution, small changes lead to big changes …. My answer was “not necessarily” small changes don’t necesairly produce big changes

I understood him to mean that small changes can accumulate and become large changes. Your last sentence is correct. Did you think that anybody posting here disagrees? His words were, "Small changes can accumulate to create big changes. A grain of sand moving one centimeter a year will eventually circle the Earth. Changes don't always lead to big changes."

Your behavior has been called nitpicking. Yes, "can" would have been a better word choice than "will" in that middle sentence, but he was very clear in the pervious and following sentences that he meant "can." So why pursue this line of inquiry?

You could simply reply “ yes Leroy you are correct @Valjean is wrong in that particular statement”

Are you satisfied with how I worded it?

I understand that according to the rules of your cult, it is strictly forbidden to point the mistakes made by an other member of the same cult .... Yes internet atheism is a cult that includes strong rules like
1 avoid the burden proof at all cost
2 keep the position vague and ambiguous (don’t reject nor deny anything)
3 “win” arguments with semantic tricks
4 don’t admit mistakes nor point to mistakes made by others from the same cult
5 believe by faith that everything has a naturalistic explanation

That's cultic behavior to you? It's an inaccurate description of "Internet atheists," but even if we stipulate to all of it, what makes it cultic? Did you mean tribal? How many of these boxes are you suggesting Internet atheists tick: Checklist of Cult Characteristics

In the context of evolution, sometimes small changes accumulate and produce big changes, sometimes they don’t. So say that small changes always produce big changes is not granted and has not been suported by you

Do you think he said that ("always"). I don't

the part that is not well evidenced is that natural selection acted upon random mutations in order to build a human eye

The proper way to word that is to say genetic variation rather than limit it to mutations, which are changes in individual genomes. As @gnostic noted here, sometimes, genetic variation arises from other mechanisms.

Us? Who is us?

You asked @Pogo that? That's easy. The enemy.

yes granted.............Organisms obviously evolved through mechanisms that produced small changes, that accumulated over time to produce big changes

This is odd to see after arguing for so long that that statement isn't necessarily correct.

One moment you say evidence isn't experiment and the next it is.

I understood him to mean that evidence can be from experiment or not.

I assume everyone makes sense all the time and try to deduce what they mean.

They probably make sense to themselves, but I don't assume that everybody makes sense, nor that they can articulate their thoughts well.

Even the butterfly in China is responding random events and then precipitating random events. It's still causation but more than merely unpredictable but unknowable.

Here's an example now. I don't know what that means. Causation (determinism) implies not random (indeterminism).

our religious concept of "God" I believe arises from confusion spawned by the tower of babel; the change in language.

And another example. Do you literally believe that the Babel myth is history or is this some metaphor. Elsewhere you wrote Babel 2.0. Presumably that is metaphor even if you believe the biblical story, but I don't know.

You believe "rabbits" and individuals are interchangeable. Foxes don't eat "rabbits" and if they needed to they'd all starve. Individual foxes eat individual rabbits when they can catch them. They might notice one is tougher or chewier than another or one ran a little faster than most but they don't know if one is fitter than another. They pretty much all taste the same (like chicken).

Nor do I know what that means. Incidentally, if those eaten rabbits hadn't reproduced yet, their reproductive fitness was zero as was their survival fitness.

You see gradual change despite the fact all observed change in all life at every level is sudden.

Nor do I understand that. I observe gradual change frequently, and so do you. How about the phases of the moon or a growing icicle or a helium-filled balloon eventually no longer floating?

You are simply imagining a gradual change of whales coming out of the ocean and then returning.

I haven't imagined that before today.

 

[Whateverist]

I believe it's always formattable in words because language becomes the very wiring of the brain.

It certainly can but I'm not sure that it is wise to expect it to always do so. Sometimes when we can't find the words it is better left unsaid. Like you I have a lot of confidence (whether deserved or not) in my chances of conveying insights with language. But as you've mentioned numerous times, context matters a lot. Much of what we task language to convey involves how we feel about a thing, event or process. While I am most comfortable relying on explicit prose I have to acknowledge it cannot substitute for a poem, story or piece of art. The old saying about the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao applies also to QM and God for those for whom that word has meaning.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'll save you some trouble, bottleneck has a specific meaning in evolutionary biology and it is not what you are using it for.

Evolution 101

evolution.berkeley.edu

look it up in the above.

It's a redefinition of selection as near as I've ever been able to determine. A semantic game of creating personal definitions for words that already have existing definitions that are widely recognized.

Perhaps it is a tool to make those that really don't understand feel like they do understand. I don't know.

 

[cladking]

They probably make sense to themselves, but I don't assume that everybody makes sense, nor that they can articulate their thoughts well.

Some people just aren't very bright. They don't see things beyond a superficial level and might not use words well. But they still always make sense in terms of their premises. Obviously this doesn't apply when we misspeak and often not to the crazy. But is is still typical for everyone to make sense in terms of their premises. Our primary duty is to deduce their premises and speak to them. Some people never speak to the point but to the words. They always are playing word games and making semantical arguments. They refuse to parse your words as intended.

People make sense because we have no choice. Just as homo sapiens spoke words that agreed with natural law because that was the nature of their consciousness we speak words that agree with our beliefs because that is the nature of ours's. All of our beliefs are always on the tip our tongue as surely as they are in the center of our eyes. We can't help it. Consciousness is pattern recognition and confused language still reflects the patterns we each see. These patterns flow logically from our premises.

I understood him to mean that evidence can be from experiment or not.

I see.

Causation (determinism) implies not random (indeterminism).

A butterfly can cause a hurricane in the sense that the hurricane could not have otherwise happened without said hurricane being preordained by the butterfly. Killing all the butterflies in China would not stop hurricanes. Events unfold chaotically and are not predictable even at the subatomic level, especially at the subatomic level. We don't even understand the forces acting at the subatomic level. We don't know the most basic things like the effect of gravity on atoms or their parts. We can make guesses and inferences but for all we know even time and gravity are quantum. Perhaps gravity has no effect on a neutron until it as accumulated enough to budge it.

Even in a nondeterministic reality as ours' is there still exists cause and effect. The butterfly raises its wings causing the air to be displaced and pushing the insect down. Cause and effect. It's not a natural law it's just the logic of reality.

 

[Pogo]

It's a redefinition of selection as near as I've ever been able to determine. A semantic game of creating personal definitions for words that already have existing definitions that are widely recognized.

Perhaps it is a tool to make those that really don't understand feel like they do understand. I don't know.

The silly thing is he is even more or less correct in using it. speciation often occurs when a small population gets isolated and develops differently which has lead us to millions but maybe less than a quadrillion species, that said I can't make hide nor hair of the rest of what he has said.

 

[cladking]

And another example. Do you literally believe that the Babel myth is history or is this some metaphor.

Neither.

It is a confused retelling of the change in language that occurred when the official universal language had to give way to the many pidgin languages that most people already spoke. It was the death of science, industry, and homo sapiens. You can't deduce its meaning or induce the possible implications without knowing there was a real event.

The authors of the versions that appear after the fact didn't know what it meant. The earliest ones who were Sumerians ~1800 BC probably had some comprehension of the meaning but they lacked any scientific framework for that understanding. ie- no matter how right or wrong they were they could only hold it as a belief.

It is literally and exactly true, precise, and complete but we can't understand it without understanding ancient science and the specific confusions introduced by homo omnisciencis. Just knowing it marks a real event of the switch from representative digital language to symbolic analog language will have to suffice at this time.

Elsewhere you wrote Babel 2.0. Presumably that is metaphor even if you believe the biblical story, but I don't know.

No.

We literally are on the threshold of a new tower of babel because of the breakdown in communication between scientists and between scientists and the public. This is exacerbated by the sale of science in Washington and manifests as the explosion in office building there. It's not just that they can buy legislation but that fewer and fewer people understand the nature of science and its application to the real world. Many of those lobbyists are just money grubbing scum but are actually trying to keep the wheels on the track. I believe we will have reached the point of no return within 20 years and something must be done. At Tower of Babel 1.0 there was a fallback position; pidgin language. The world experienced a prolonged dark ages but ancient technology (agriculture) allowed the continuation of the new species. This time there is no fallback position at all. We need science and technology to survive and we need the wheels to turn to maintain population. When science breaks down this time, should it occur, we will be extinct and no new man will rise in our place.

There are countless steps that might prevent or forestall it but we are rushing headlong into oblivion.

Incidentally, if those eaten rabbits hadn't reproduced yet, their reproductive fitness was zero as was their survival fitness

They all taste the same.

MMMMmm; baby rabbits. there's not much meat on them but they are tender.

Nor do I understand that. I observe gradual change frequently, and so do you. How about the phases of the moon or a growing icicle or a helium-filled balloon eventually no longer floating?

As I've said before if you think you are seeing gradual change your perspective is wrong. Reality may have always existed and a ballon lasts a few days if it isn't pricked.

I haven't imagined that before today.

Hmmmm....

Perspective is everything and I'm sure there are things right in front of face I've yet to imagine.

 

[cladking]

I'll save you some trouble, bottleneck has a specific meaning in evolutionary biology and it is not what you are using it for.

Evolution 101

evolution.berkeley.edu

look it up in the above.

I have always used the term "near extinction" until people insisted I use "bottleneck" instead.

Words are irrelevant. Only the intended meaning has relevancy.

 

[Pogo]

I have always used the term "near extinction" until people insisted I use "bottleneck" instead.

Words are irrelevant. Only the intended meaning has relevancy.

Well near extinction and bottleneck are closely related, but not directly to multiplication of species or rapid change.
If you wish to communicate your ideas it appears you will have to learn pidgin as you say otherwise you will have to leave it to our version of science unless you believe that we need to return to hunter-gatherers before some sort of renaissance.

 

[leroy]

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.

However it is still true that if you assert that one view is more likely to be true than the other, you have a burden proof….which was the point of the comment

 

[leroy]

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.

It is perplexing that you refuse to admit your mistake , even when you could have easy argue for an innocent typo or a misread .

at best one of numerous possibilities.

Given that I said “it is naive to think that evolution is caused just by random mutations and natural selection"

and given your answer:

“Why are you calling me naïve?”

By far the most obvious interpretation is that you are tacitly claiming that you believe that evolution is caused just by random mutations and natural selection and you know it.......otherwise why would you answer somethign like that?

But ok, you made a mistake, you probably misread my original comments, and thought that I was saying something else………that is ok, we are all human and we are all likely to make that kind of mistakes someday…………………what is unacceptable is your unwillingness to admit the mistake

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The silly thing is he is even more or less correct in using it. speciation often occurs when a small population gets isolated and develops differently which has lead us to millions but maybe less than a quadrillion species, that said I can't make hide nor hair of the rest of what he has said.

I find it a common feature of those that reject science. The re-appellation of established terminology to mean something else, reliance on straw man versions of science, considerable belief in a vast personal knowledge that is never revealed in the volumes of their written content and most often, claims without substance offered as fact.

Personally, I don't see those with these traits as having a voice in the discussion and what they post, in volume and on heavy rotation, I feel can be ignored without further comment other than correction. I have found that those so inclined are only here to spread their word and don't seem to have any real interest in learning.

The claim that all change in all things is sudden has been widely refuted times too numerous to count on here, but here it comes up again.

At one point, the claim of universal sudden change was qualified in relation to star formation as if that refuted the fact that the evidence shows that change across the spectrum is variable in time. The attempt reminded me of the learning tool of using a 24 hour clock to go from the origin of the earth through natural history to the rise of man demonstrating that we are relatively recent. Even doing that, doesn't make the appearance of humans sudden. It just places it in perspective.

 

[John53]

Words are irrelevant. Only the intended meaning has relevancy.

 

[John53]

I gave it a try but I can't get it to work. Maybe words are relevant?

 

[Pogo]

However it is still true that if you assert that one view is more likely to be true than the other, you have a burden proof….which was the point of the comment

@leroy, go back and read the sequence again, you were given definitions of words, they only one who made any statement about probability of truth was you, they are not positions of evidence, they are positions of belief or knowdue to lack of evidence.