Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

Do you expect an answer from me? I am not following the conversation and have no idea on what you are talking about

That you have lost the thread is obvious from your last comment.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am hard pressed to reconcile claims of understanding evolution with inconsistencies that reveal a lack of understanding of evolution.

Mutations do not cause evolution. They generate the variation on which selection can occur and drive the evolution of a population.

That is an honest answer and implying that honest answers to a poorly constructed and useless question are what will be received seems like passive aggression and I find that insulting.

Selection...

 

[YoursTrue]

That you have lost the thread is obvious from your last comment.

All you people do is insult and misrepresent.

 

[YoursTrue]

does that include natrualism ?..............I assume yes

From my observation here, it includes anything they want it to.

 

[Pogo]

All you people do is insult and misrepresent.

And you and he spend time asking the same question over and over because the answer isn't what you want.
@leroy wants a percentage for a question that is binary and if Selection is really a question, I will just repeat @Dan From Smithville's very polite response even though it expresses the same disillusionment with your responses.
"
I am hard pressed to reconcile claims of understanding evolution with inconsistencies that reveal a lack of understanding of evolution.

Mutations do not cause evolution. They generate the variation on which selection can occur and drive the evolution of a population.

That is an honest answer and implying that honest answers to a poorly constructed and useless question are what will be received seems like passive aggression and I find that insulting."

 

[YoursTrue]

There are also Christians who do not believe in gods but embrace the teachings of Christ. They are known as Christian atheists and are not that uncommon even in the clergy.

Lol I wonder what they think about sin and if they ever pray ? As far as praying, I doubt it. What a sad joke. They're Christian atheists. Amazing. Thank you for mentioning that. The entire theme gets stranger and stranger...

 

[YoursTrue]

And you and he spend time asking the same question over and over because the answer isn't what you want.
@leroy wants a percentage for a question that is binary and if Selection is really a question, I will just repeat @Dan From Smithville's very polite response even though it expresses the same disillusionment with your responses.
"
I am hard pressed to reconcile claims of understanding evolution with inconsistencies that reveal a lack of understanding of evolution.

Mutations do not cause evolution. They generate the variation on which selection can occur and drive the evolution of a population.

That is an honest answer and implying that honest answers to a poorly constructed and useless question are what will be received seems like passive aggression and I find that insulting."

Etc and etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you and he spend time asking the same question over and over because the answer isn't what you want.
@leroy wants a percentage for a question that is binary and if Selection is really a question, I will just repeat @Dan From Smithville's very polite response even though it expresses the same disillusionment with your responses.
"
I am hard pressed to reconcile claims of understanding evolution with inconsistencies that reveal a lack of understanding of evolution.

Mutations do not cause evolution. They generate the variation on which selection can occur and drive the evolution of a population.

That is an honest answer and implying that honest answers to a poorly constructed and useless question are what will be received seems like passive aggression and I find that insulting."

Mutations don't cause evolution but they're necessary to cause/enable evolution. Unless you don't think so.

 

[Pogo]

does that include natrualism ?..............I assume yes

No, it is English, no information refers to gods my idea or any others I have heard of.
Naturalism on the other hand is reinforced with data everywhere I look.

You really need to stop assuming, I can't remember you got one right.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it is English, no information refers to gods my idea or any others I have heard of.
Naturalism on the other hand is reinforced with data everywhere I look.

You really need to stop assuming, I can't remember you got one right.

Thanks. You all have really answered my questions.

 

[Pogo]

Mutations don't cause evolution but they're necessary to cause/enable evolution. Unless you don't think so.

Is this supposed to be a claim that you really do understand at least part of evolution or just another random statement acting as a leading question?

 

[Pogo]

Thanks. You all have really answered my questions.

Good, sleep well and we will answer the same ones again tomorrow I am sure.

 

[John53]

From my observation here, it includes anything they want it to.

All you people do is insult and misrepresent.

 

[YoursTrue]

All you people do is insult and misrepresent.

Lol...

Good, sleep well and we will answer the same ones again tomorrow I am sure.

Lol...

 

[cladking]

And I should add that other scientifically literate critical thinkers, empiricists, and humanists almost never ask me what I meant nor them. We may disagree, but there's no communication problem

And how many times have I told you that these communication problems exist but people don't see them? How many? If you don't believe something I say then why not challenge it rather than ignore it? How can I communicate ideas that you've never seen before if you just dismiss the damn definitions I provide and the point of every word? Why does anyone even talk to me except to lecture me about their own beliefs and to suggest that I must be wrong because I don't talk just like them?

How many times have I used the term "chinese telephone" to prove there is always an ongoing problem with all communication. It's not better in science because it is more exact but rather it is worse because it is more complex. You can see this problem in peoples' models as well. How many times have I pointed out that 3% of cosmologists incorrectly answer the question of whether or not an airplane can take off from a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction? All that schooling and they misapply their models to a simple question most 4th graders could answer. It's easy to do. the real world is complex and confusing and we each tend to rush to judgement. But this is still the state of the reality for homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio. We are so confused we don't even know we are confused and can't tell we are confused because we see what we believe. We think we are intelligent but "intelligence" as we define it doesn't even exist. We think intelligence underlies science and that Peers are each intelligent but if the human race needed intelligence we'd still be swinging in the trees with the monkeys.

These are ideas are not complex. But you are still ignoring them or feigning an inability to parse them. How many times have I defined "metaphysics" as "the basis of science". Do you think I somehow changed every time I use the word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, you et al, want an excuse to ignore the evidence I cite. You want to ignore the logic and the experiments it ties together. You want to believe Darwin had it right all along despite his lousy assumptions and his even lousier methodology.

So I get word games and then I get blamed for your own word games. You can't address the points I raise and frankly I suspect they are so foreign to what you believe that they are invisible to believers in science and believers in scientific miracles. If you admitted seeing them you might also need to admit that those here with a religious perspective often make far better points than those who can do nothing but cite Peers and texts.

You've lost the argument but like a dead snapping turtle you're still clamped to the stick.

 

[blü 2]

No, you et al, want an excuse to ignore the evidence I cite.

This seems to overlook the number of times in the past I've asked you for evidence but all you did was repeat your assertions.

Do you in fact have any evidence for your claims? If so, where did you post it so I can read it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't think Encyclopedia Britannica is the best of sources. In the future if you have a statement, it would be good for you and others to corroborate your statements with what you believe is a reliable source. Thank you.

I use quite a few sources and Wikipedia tends to be far more in depth when it comes to their articles. For anything at all important the multiple editors that such articles attract cause it to become much more accurate and well worded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really, you had the energy to write 3 or 4 comments “correcting” me on semantic issues , but you don’t have the energy for answering a YES or NO question?

Even this post I am responding to requires more energy than answering my question


Stop inventing excuses and answer the question

I am unaware of the question but it may be of the "Have you quit beating your wife yet? Answer Yes or No?" variety. Most people cannot answer that question properly because they do not beat their wives. You may have had a false accusation buried in your question or a false dichotomy. Either makes a yes or no answer impossible.

 

[cladking]

This seems to overlook the number of times in the past I've asked you for evidence but all you did was repeat your assertions.

Do you in fact have any evidence for your claims? If so, where did you post it so I can read it?

You just ignored a whole post full of evidence without even challenging it or acknowledging it. This is exactly what happens when I present links, logic, or simple facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just ignored a whole post full of evidence without even challenging it or acknowledging it. This is exactly what happens when I present links, logic, or simple facts.

Have you finally learned what is and what is not evidence? Congratulations if you have.

Related to that what is your hypothesis? What de novo predictions does it make and how can it be tested by those?