Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

We know that it is valid to recognize the application of a logical fallacy to support a claim. And equally valid to use that as the basis to reject the claim. But past experience tells me to expect that every effort will be employed to twist this rational and valid action and frame it as an insult.

"Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation." Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution.
I guess some here might think these guys don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No one has rejected the claim that mutations were the original source of variation.

The claim that was originally made was that mutations are the only source of variation. That claim has been falsified even if the person making it refuses to recognize that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. In the absence of mutation, evolution would continue to occur through the contributions of other mechanisms of variation that are active in populations.

This has long been known in science and it surprises me to see those claiming full understanding do not know this information.

Are they wrong in their personal assessment of their own understanding and thus rejecting science on grounds other than understanding?

It seems so.

Is that your opinion and is there substance to it by authoritative sources beyond your opinion? Or do we look into another rabbit hole or step over it or go into it? So is there any scientific source you can refer to beyond your take on this matter?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No one has rejected the claim that mutations were the original source of variation.

The claim that was originally made was that mutations are the only source of variation. That claim has been falsified even if the person making it refuses to recognize that.

Here is what I have seen.

Claim: I fully understand science, the theory of evolution and the evidence that both supports and is explained by the theory.

Statement: I can't understand how all these miraculous living things could come about based on that theory.

Statement: I reject the evidence, not on scientific and rational grounds that I claim to be fully cognizant of, but on how incredible I find all of this.

Observation: Rejection of the science isn't based on evidence, hypothesis or theory, but upon the grounds of a logical fallacy.

What I don't understand is how all of this can be reconciled. At least one of the above has to be false.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one has rejected the claim that mutations were the original source of variation.

The claim that was originally made was that mutations are the only source of variation. That claim has been falsified even if the person making it refuses to recognize that.

What about evolution? Mutations are said by scientists to be the only way evolution occurs. If you can agree or disagree that would be helpful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is what I have seen.

Claim: I fully understand science, the theory of evolution and the evidence that both supports and is explained by the theory.

Statement: I can't understand how all these miraculous living things could come about based on that theory.

Statement: I reject the evidence, not on scientific and rational grounds that I claim to be fully cognizant of, but on how incredible I find all of this.

Observation: Rejection of the science isn't based on evidence, hypothesis or theory, but upon the grounds of a logical fallacy.

What I don't understand is how all of this can be reconciled. At least one of the above has to be false.

Further, I don't understand why those rejecting science on fallacious logical grounds would demand further scientific sources that they don't seem to understand any better or with any real interest than the sources that have been previously and regularly provided. The initial rejection wasn't on logical grounds, conditions of the evidence or flaws in the theory. It was based on a believed view unsupported by the evidence and on logical fallacy.

It is a baffling rabbit hole.

 

[Pogo]

To @It Aint Necessarily So and others -- we are all free to have opinions. You may disagree with the following, but I see no reason to disagree with it. "Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation." This from www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution
Just to clarify, do I believe that life came about (after abiogenesis, of course) by means of Darwin's explanation of evolution? No, I do not. Be that as it may, the above link is what science says about it, though. "
See--"Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation."
My discussion about this is basically over. If you don't think you're in error, obviously that's up to you and others.

It is over, because you are tired of arguing for today, we know you will continue with arguing semantics on irrelevant differences in broad statements because it is all you have to the point where you state that you have significant evidence but are unwilling to present it.

Go ahead and present this "article from a respected source" or continue to avoid the cognitive dissonance that an objective review will most assuredly result in.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is what I have seen.

Claim: I fully understand science, the theory of evolution and the evidence that both supports and is explained by the theory.

Statement: I can't understand how all these miraculous living things could come about based on that theory.

Statement: I reject the evidence, not on scientific and rational grounds that I claim to be fully cognizant of, but on how incredible I find all of this.

Observation: Rejection of the science isn't based on evidence, hypothesis or theory, but upon the grounds of a logical fallacy.

What I don't understand is how all of this can be reconciled. At least one of the above has to be false.

An important point to reiterate is that scientists have discovered and reported on other mechanisms of variation and this seems to be something that is ignored with gusto. Perhaps it is only that the argument is about oneupmanship and not about learning, demonstrating or any valid support of a claim?

This is where this always ends it seems. I find myself thinking more and more of the Pigeon Chess paradigm than anything else.

 

[Pogo]

I would expect that those claiming to have full understanding of the subject would recognize that the source they are using is limited and would know of the other mechanisms of variation that have been identified and characterized.

Failure to adhere to that overarching claim raises serious questions.

It is often convenient in rhetorical situations to vacillate between positions when one finds it convenient, whether it can be considered honest or not is another question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is often convenient in rhetorical situations to vacillate between positions when one finds it convenient, whether it can be considered honest or not is another question.

I noticed that the demand to "agree or disagree" has independently come up here as well as it has elsewhere. It is much, much less about coming to understanding than an invitation to go down a semantic rabbit hole of never ending oneupmanship I think.

 

[Pogo]

Is that your opinion and is there substance to it by authoritative sources beyond your opinion? Or do we look into another rabbit hole or step over it or go into it? So is there any scientific source you can refer to beyond your take on this matter?

You have yet to present an authoritative source, only simple statements to promote a general understanding. Finding semantic inconsistencies in those is not only worthless relative to reality but indicative of your desperation to find anything to actually support your position.

You are better than this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Further, I don't understand why those rejecting science on fallacious logical grounds would demand further scientific sources that they don't seem to understand any better or with any real interest than the sources that have been previously and regularly provided. The initial rejection wasn't on logical grounds, conditions of the evidence or flaws in the theory. It was based on a believed view unsupported by the evidence and on logical fallacy.

It is a baffling rabbit hole.

I surely do not reject science. If you say I do, I will tell you that is not true. You have your beliefs about things and I have mine. I may not agree with everything science says and from what I see, neither do you. Meanwhile, something to ponder over. This about what people say on here, whether they're right or wrong.
"Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation." If you think that's not true, please go ahead and say it's true or not true. Thank you.
www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346/#:~:text=Mutations%20are%20essential%20to%20evolution,a%20defining%20aspect%20of%20evolution

 

[Pogo]

If anyone here needs a break, I can recommend an NPR program on the radio called a way with words where they are currently discussing what words are used to describe the @ character.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have yet to present an authoritative source, only simple statements to promote a general understanding. Finding semantic inconsistencies in those is not only worthless relative to reality but indicative of your desperation to find anything to actually support your position.

You are better than this.

Right now Pogo I am not in your discussion. So forgive me if I do not read all of your posts now and so am not responding to many of them currently. Sorry. Maybe another time. Take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

I noticed that the demand to "agree or disagree" has independently come up here as well as it has elsewhere. It is much, much less about coming to understanding than an invitation to go down a semantic rabbit hole of never ending oneupmanship I think.

It's very simple. Either you agree with a statement or you do not. Yes, these rabbit holes that people make are a bit disconcerting. So it's either yes or no to some things. OK, bye again for now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder. Is my effort to enlighten driving attempts at one-upmanship? Is that a good means to stimulate those that seem in need of a feeling of superiority and get them to dig deeper and learn more?

Of course, you have to watch those goal posts. Sometimes they are moved. Some have to move them in order to continue that feeling of one-upping and maintain the belief that they fully understand.

Mutations for instance were initially claimed to the only means of variation by which evolution occurs. That has been falsified by the facts and other mechanisms of variation have been noted. That is not a rejection of the fact that mutation is the predominant or even the original means of variation, just that it is not the only means and that it is not absolutely required for the evolution of a population.

I don't fully understand. It is why I continue to study and learn. But I understand enough and more than some to come to the conclusions that I do. I don't pretend to have sufficient grounds arising independently and apart from that which I reject to reject it as others do.

Is it a valid conclusion to say that something is so incredible to me and that I cannot fathom how it exists and use that as a basis to reject even the best explanation based on logic, reason and evidence?

Whoosh! There go those goal posts.

Is this the second or third recognition of that fallacy today?

I don't know that anyone supporting science has claimed that mutations are not essential to evolution or that they were not the the original source of genetic variation giving natural selection some fodder to work with. I have not seen any that accept the theory of evolution make that claim. Why is evidence being offered to refute an unstated claim?

The original claim was that they are the only source of heritable variation. That claim has been falsified and it seems every effort is being employed to divert from and to ignore positive agreement that it has been falsified.

I reject the claim that some do not reject science. The evidence I have seen with my own eyes contradicts that claim for those making it. The fact that rejection of a scientific theory was carried out on the basis of a logical fallacy leads to the rejection of the claim that science is accepted. Further, I do not consider the recognition and use of some technology is consistent as evidence that science is accepted.

A person can use a computer or a television without understanding, recognizing or accepting any of the science that has been or is being employed in either of those technologies. The refusal of blood transfusions isn't based on accepted and understood science, but upon ideological grounds that reject that science.

 

[Pogo]

I surely do not reject science. If you say I do, I will tell you that is not true. You have your beliefs about things and I have mine. I may not agree with everything science says and from what I see, neither do you. Meanwhile, something to ponder over. This about what people say on here, whether they're right or wrong.
"Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation." If you think that's not true, please go ahead and say it's true or not true. Thank you.
www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346/#:~:text=Mutations%20are%20essential%20to%20evolution,a%20defining%20aspect%20of%20evolution

And the problem here is your equivocation between beliefs and that which you can demonstrate evidence for to others. Your practice is typically to attempt to elevate semantic differences in explanation to significant controversies to justify your position of having magic as an equivalent or better explanation.

 

[Pogo]

It's very simple. Either you agree with a statement or you do not. Yes, these rabbit holes that people make are a bit disconcerting. So it's either yes or no to some things. OK, bye again for now.

Only for the simple minded, you are not claiming sorority are you ?

ETA clearification.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Whoosh! There go those goal posts.

Is this the second or third recognition of that fallacy today?

I don't know that anyone supporting science has claimed that mutations are not essential to evolution or that they were not the the original source of genetic variation giving natural selection some fodder to work with. I have not seen any that accept the theory of evolution make that claim. Why is evidence being offered to refute an unstated claim?

The original claim was that they are the only source of heritable variation. That claim has been falsified and it seems every effort is being employed to divert from and to ignore positive agreement that it has been falsified.

I reject the claim that some do not reject science. The evidence I have seen with my own eyes contradicts that claim for those making it. The fact that rejection of a scientific theory was carried out on the basis of a logical fallacy leads to the rejection of the claim that science is accepted. Further, I do not consider the recognition and use of some technology is consistent as evidence that science is accepted.

A person can use a computer or a television without understanding, recognizing or accepting any of the science that has been or is being employed in either of those technologies. The refusal of blood transfusions isn't based on accepted and understood science, but upon ideological grounds that reject that science.

People keep going "for now" and then coming right back and I didn't even get them to say Kltpzyxm.

 

[Pogo]

I can quote comments of me admiting errors .... would you accept that as evidence that I do admit errors?

It is not a question of you admitting blatant errors but assuming that your position is generally without error.