Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't believe in communication.

I believe you and will not communicate with you at all.

 

[John53]

I believe you and will not communicate with you at all.

That's your rectangular thinking brain. Rectangular luminous homo rabbitus

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's your rectangular thinking brain. Rectangular luminous homo rabbitus

I don't believe in brains. I used to. But not anymore. Not since puberty.

 

[Valjean]

There is text that I can quote where you said or implied that:

1 NS doesn't act just upon random mutations (implying that there are other mechanisms )

2 organisms evolved just by these 2 mechanisms (RM and NS)


So obviously there is a contradiction in your words.........which one is it 1 or 2,?

I'm not seeing any contradiction. Clarify, please.
Do you understand how evolution works?

Anything that creates variation contributes to a pool that natural selection can choose from. Among single celled organisms mutation is the major driver, but with longer generation organisms, mixing genomes sexually produces more variation more quickly than waiting for mutations.
Of course there are other major and minor mechanisms of evolution. Google.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry that you didn't check the non-religious links, they were educational in the scientific sense. You obviously have your opinion. I am quoting about the absolute necessity of mutations for evolution from science sources.

Just checked your scitable link, it doesn't even work, got another?
Will see if I can figure out the error.

 

[Pogo]

Just checked your scitable link, it doesn't even work, got another?
Will see if I can figure out the error.

real link goes to DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution
be serious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

real link goes to DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution
be serious.

I just skimmed through it, but that is tragic. Desperation is a terrible thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

real link goes to DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution
be serious.

OK, didn't realize that. Although the first couple of statements there -- hmm, I wonder if it's true in your case...

 

[John53]

I just skimmed through it, but that is tragic. Desperation is a terrible thing.

Scientists are right about everything unless it disagrees with me then they're dirty rotten liars.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Pogo -- Did not realize that was the link, so it was not what I saw, I'll look at it again. But that link starts out near the beginning,
"Most scientists admit they do not know.
But all atheists think they do – all atheists have one and only one theory to explain the origin of life. Every single atheist claims that life began purely by chance and there is no God." Wonder if that's true. About atheists, that is. Meantime, that was not the link I thought it was, but it makes a good beginning about what atheists think...

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists are right about everything unless it disagrees with then they're dirty rotten liars.

only sometimes. Not all the time.

 

[John53]

only sometimes. Not all the time.

Correct. Only when they disagree with me.

 

[leroy]

This is what you do. No where in my post was there a claim that you don't admit error.

....
Your comment...
The latter is something that you do and that I recognized early on in our interactions. You do not seem to be able to admit error, I have watched you go to extraordinary effort to divert and avoid admitting errors and personal ignorance of the topics and discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This what draws me to RF more than anything out - observing how other minds process information. Creationists are the richest but not the only source material. The anti-vaxxers, MAGA's defending Trump, climate deniers, and people trying to reconcile contradictory scripture are interesting to observe.

I admit that trying to understand that can be fascinating. But it can be frustrating when you really want to discuss science and the evidence and others are fixated on Egyptologists and herbivorous beavers that farm fish or belief that they fully understand science when clearly the do not.

Still, it is interested to see the tactics employed to maintain their beliefs and reject evidence and the use of it. It would be useful to understand how this sort of thinking develops.

When I was younger, I worked with the aging for brief time. Some of them were suffering from effects of strokes, aphasia and varying degrees of dementia. I was instructed not to play into their delusions if I was present while those were manifesting. It was 40 years ago and I suppose that was the advice of times. I'm not sure where this has progressed to these days, but I am sure that I've incorporated some of that thinking into my own approach to these discussions.

People have asked why bother - you're never going to change any of those minds - and I tell them that I know that and that that is not my purpose. I have referred to it as "tapping the glass" as with an aquarium to see the reaction. You've seen my discussion lately with Cladking. It's clear to me (and probably you and others) that he will never define intelligence or will he address the question of why that is (cognitive blindness of some sort or trolling).

I agree. I have reconciled myself that I will either get no response or it will be some wild response like Lenski is wrong because cheap, bulk agar is available from China.

It can't, but that's not an issue for the claimant, and I find that interesting. Do they not see the incoherence? Or do they not care? It has to be one of them, doesn't it, but good luck getting any useful feedback to help decide the matter.

I don't think some do. Perhaps don't. I think the feeling is that those types we are discussing are fully versed in all the information and possess the intelligence, knowledge and skill that have given them the best conclusions. Asking questions usually shows there great belief in self is faulty. Some of them have come up with sometimes clever ways around the questions or avoiding them. Some just ignore questions and points they don't like as we see here often.

For whatever reason, I have never gotten tired of this activity. I find that kind of thinking endlessly fascinating and wonder why some people are that way (the groups I just named) while others are very different in their approach to processing information, trusting reason and empiricism to find answers and gain knowledge.

I would imagine it is education to some extent, but clearly there are deeper psychological and cognitive factors involved in some cases.

Yes, disregarding what has been written and failing to even mention seeing it is one of the commonest techniques.

Yes indeed. You beat me to it.

That's a good question. With Yours True, I believe that she is sincerely interested in learning but can't. She brings links here that don't sound like they come from creationist sites suggesting that she is Googling and reading science, but to no avail. Maybe it came from a creationist or JW source anyway.

Honestly, I think there is interest there too but some barrier or lack of ability along with belief in a doctrine that confounds the interest. I'm pretty certain that at least some of the links are from legitimate sources, but the information is misunderstood and the meaning of it lost many times.

But I think what's commoner is representing that one cares about reason applied to evidence, since when you or I provide a link, it's generally not looked at. People don't want to say, "I just choose to believe it and don't care if that's unreasonable or contradicts evidence I can't interpret anyway" So they say, "Show me your evidence" but then don't look at it.

That is the common theme I'm familiar with. I've provided one paper on the demonstration of natural selection in the field that is routinely ignored. Others that I've provided equally as often are ignored each time as well.

But that's fair. I frequently don't look at links provided from such people, but then again, unlike the creationists I just described, I'm not asking for any, either. But those can be fun at times, too - studying the so-called "pious fraud" (aka lying for Jesus) - and trying to identify the misinformation and/or specious argument. Here's one I read a few years back and refer to at times. Scroll down to "One Athiest [sic] Lie After Another" for a fine example of this dishonesty, one which I refer to when explaining why not going to such sites for information is not the genetic fallacy. From DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution :

"During the first half of the 20th century, that fact [humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, other apes 24] would have seriously weakened “ape into human evolution theory” because there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes. We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce."

That's a compelling argument to somebody unfamiliar with human chromosome 2. Chromosome dropout would be lethal, but not end-to-end fusing of chromosomes, and it would be difficult to find fault there unless one went to a knowledgeable and reputable source. I would warn Your True not to take information from such sources for just this reason, and continue going to Google

I see misinformation like that as a big problem and one that helps maintain the rejection of rational review, evidence and science. Since the audience these are directed at usually lack a technical background, the sciency sounding jargon sucks them into believing the claims.

Maybe rethink your purpose. Forget about teaching such people. It isn't happening. That doesn't mean to stop teaching. Others will read and learn from you. I will.

And now you know both aspects of posting here at what I call humanist school. The teachers are the lecture section and tapping the glass is the lab section. One can learn from both.

Besides those two, I post for practice constructing and evaluating arguments including identifying and naming fallacies and practice at writing.

That seems to be where I'm landing. Posting corrections as @Subduction Zone refers to it. Practicing my writing and debating skills and discovering new scientific topics from others, including the literalists and science deniers, to learn more about. Otherwise, the frustration would take over and divert from the positive aspects.

What you wrote was incorrect, so I would agree if that wasn't what you meant, although I see (coming up) that you're still making the same mistake.

Then you've misunderstood what you read. Here, you've gone back to using the word "only"

No, I'm sure you didn't make that up, but it also seems like you don't understand what it says. Did you see the word reproduction? That's an essential aspect of evolution, as is natural selection. Those are mechanisms to promote the transmission of genetic information through populations over generations. Mutation is NOT the mechanism that caused you and any sibs you have to be different from your parents and each other.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with what you transformed it into when you tried to paraphrase it.

That's fine. I was hoping to see you acknowledge that "All new genes come from mutations" does NOT mean that only mutation can change populations over time. New genes (mutation) are an important factor but not the only factor. No need to answer again if your answer isn't that you can now see that those are different ideas - one yours, the other from an external source that you quoted.

Since this is not directed at me, I'll leave it for its intended recipient to respond to if at all. Perhaps there will be something meaningful to come of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

....
Your comment...
The latter is something that you do and that I recognized early on in our interactions. You do not seem to be able to admit error, I have watched you go to extraordinary effort to divert and avoid admitting errors and personal ignorance of the topics and discussion.

Not seeming able to admit error is correct, but it is not "You don't admit error".

That is the end of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists are right about everything unless it disagrees with me then they're dirty rotten liars.

Pretty much.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just checked your scitable link, it doesn't even work, got another?
Will see if I can figure out the error.

Sorry, this is the other link. Hope it meets with your approval about -- mutations. I do not believe this is a religiously based link, I apologize for the error in the other link. How about this one?

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution​

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution

Mutation is the only way that new alleles can be created within a population. Mutations generate the variation on which natural selection acts.

www.nature.com

(Hope it comes up better than the other did.)
"Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution. It is easy to understand how a mutation that allows an organism to feed, grow or reproduce more effectively could cause the mutant allele to become more abundant over time."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists are right about everything unless it disagrees with me then they're dirty rotten liars.

It works for other posters too. When you post that mutations are the only source of variation for evolution and that is shown to be wrong, you don't acknowledge that. You move the goal posts and then claim everyone else is wrong.

From my view, this type of tactic says a lot about the person employing it and what they really understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists are right about everything unless it disagrees with me then they're dirty rotten liars.

I suppose repeating the altered response heavily helps distance it from the previous, falsified claims where the goal posts were first set.

 

[Pogo]

Since there is no real interest in discussion or learning, that is all I'm left with myself. Adventures down the rabbit hole have become tiresome anyway.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. You ask a question or make a point and the response has little or nothing to do with anything you posted. As with rabbit holes, I've tired of pigeon chess as well.

Ancient pigeon chess?

Have you a biblical reference?