Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[John53]

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.

There is not one link in the post of yours he quoted so that claim is demonstrably false.

 

[YoursTrue]

Mutations re: evolution --
"Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, providing the raw material on which evolutionary forces such as natural selection can act." (Wikipedia) Mutation - Wikipedia.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well so far the prediction is true.................but granted Predicting atheist behavior is not very impressive, they all do and say the same things

It is not true and it isn't atheist behavior or the behavior of believers that understand science that is predictable. Quite the contrary. All of those that appear to reject science do so in a very predictable and highly repetitive manner.

It is just fallacies and the same meaningless tactics on heavy rotation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

Of course, it is variation that is heritable that is necessary. Mutations are the main source of that, but not necessarily the only source. Mutations are important and provide a ready and steady source of variation, but evolution can and does occur without them. Another example of how little understood the theory and supporting ideas and evidence are for those claiming to understand so well, they can dismiss the theory on unscientific grounds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

No. Empty claims, mantras, stories and declarations of unsupported, believed views remain the sole response to science I'm seeing here. It is a sans evidence world for literalism and syncretic belief systems.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is not one link in the post of yours he quoted so that claim is demonstrably false.

I saw no evidence. I never have. Just empty claims of evidence as wide and full as a Kansas wheat field.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

I saw no evidence offered now. From past experience, I expect to see none. My expectations have routinely been met with gusto.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Empty claims, mantras, stories and declarations of unsupported, believed views remain the sole response to science I'm seeing here. It is a sans evidence world for literalism and syncretic belief systems.

Oh poop! I was so hoping that he had changed his ways. Though I gave him enough info so that if he is sitting on some super secret evidence that he will now know how to post it.

By the way, can I go to Vegas and bet against myself?

 

[YoursTrue]

"Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur." DNA and Mutations
("Without mutations, evolution could NOT occur.")

 

[John53]

"Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur." DNA and Mutations
("Without mutations, evolution could NOT occur.")

So you're now supporting evolution?

 

[Pogo]

So you're now supporting evolution?

Probably just the set up for some little niggle to say that see, the two introductory sites, or cites in this case, don't agree therefore Evilushionists are wrong and I can keep my unevidenced, belief.

 

[John53]

Probably just the set up for some little niggle to say that see, the two introductory sites, or cites in this case, don't agree therefore Evilushionists are wrong and I can keep my unevidenced, belief.

More likely hunting wabbits so she can tell him he's not a real Christian.

 

[Pogo]

More likely hunting wabbits so she can tell him he's not a real Christian.

Not sleeping well wondering if there are more true Scotsmen or real Christians?

 

[John53]

Not sleeping well wondering if there are more true Scotsmen or real Christians?

Depends who you ask

 

[leroy]

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

I have no idea on what are you talking about but your comment is very telling ..... "Lost the thread? " ..... Under your view are these threads about winning? (Rather than learning)..... This explains a lot

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok so given the evidence we have to date.....do you affirm that naturalism (atheism) is more likely to be true than theism ? ....... From this comment it seems that you would answer "yes" but from an earlier comment it seems that you are answering "No"


So why fon you simply answer with a direct Yes or No?

 

[leroy]

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.

Don't worry thus is not a beat you wife question......


The question is: given the evidence that we have to date.....do you affirm that atheism (naturalism) is More likely to be true than theism?

A very simple yes or no question in my opinion

 

[leroy]

It is not true and it isn't atheist behavior or the behavior of believers that understand science that is predictable. Quite the contrary. All of those that appear to reject science do so in a very predictable and highly repetitive manner.

It is just fallacies and the same meaningless tactics on heavy rotation.

All of those that appear to reject science do so in a very predictable and highly repetitive manner

Wich includes the typical internet atheist


For example denying that the universe is FT or that the universe had a beginning or denying biogenesis is very typical from atheist... I see no difference between the atheist that denies that the universe (or multiverse) had a beginning and the creationist that denies that the earth is billions of years old......... Both go against the current scientific evidence because they don't like the implications of such evidence.

 

[Pogo]

I have no idea on what are you talking about but your comment is very telling ..... "Lost the thread? " ..... Under your view are these threads about winning? (Rather than learning)..... This explains a lot

Off to your usual bad start with a bad assumption and false dichotomy, this is not a win-lose statement but a statement about whether your comments are even relevant to the subject.

Lost the thread perder el hilo

 

[blü 2]

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.

There you go again, failing to specify the "evidence" you're referring to.

In what post did you post it?