Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

Not necessarily, the grain of sand could have been moving in circles …….If you prove to me that the grain moved 1cm yesterday, that observation by itself wouldn’t show that the grain will eventually circle the earth……………(additional evidence is required)

or sometimes, there could be limits.........Or insuperable barriers, like an ocean preventing the grain of sand to keep moving or irreducible complex step

Why would an ocean be a barrier? A sand grain could just as easily move across the ocean floor as across land.
You're nitpicking. You get my point.

If you affirm that the grain of sand will eventauly circle the earth, it is your burden to show that there is no ocean preventing the trip (or that there is a mechanism that would allow it to overcome the obstacle)

Nitpicking.

If you affirm that the eye evolved by random mutations and NS it is your burden to show that there are no IC complex steps or that there is a mechanism that can overcome that obstacle

What's an "IC complex step?"
What obstacles are there? There are gradual changes and selected improvements, from simple, light-sensitive cells to an octopus' eye.

The end point is that “small steps by themselves” dont prove “big steps”

But they demonsrtably accumulate into big steps, don't they?

Yes internet atheism is a cult that includes stong rules like
1 avoid the burden proof at all cost

What on Earth are you talking about. Atheism? Who brought up atheism?
Atheism depends on burden of proof, does it not. It rejects the God-claim when the claimants cannot meet their burden.

2 keep the position vague and ambiguous (don’t reject nor deny anything)

The position seems clear. The theists haven't met their burden, so their claim is shelved.

3 “win” arguments with semantic tricks

Semantic tricks? Explain.

4 don’t admit mistakes nor point to mistakes made by others from the same cult

I have no idea what you're talking about, here.
Cult??!!

5 believe by faith that everything has a naturalistic explanation …

No. The belief is evidence-based.

 

[Pogo]

yes I would say that epigenetics is exactly what Lamarck would have predicted…………. But my point is not dependent on that

my point is that epigenetics (you can call it Lamarckism or not) produces small “micro evolutionary changes” but that by itslef doesn’t proves that this mechanism + time also produces big macro evolutionary changes

Mr. Clueless, epigenetic changes are the result of evolutionary changes to the genome to allow it to respond to them. That the outcome occurs in individuals is as Lamarckian as the ability to tan in the sun.

 

[Valjean]

Your grain of sand might not circle the earth because we didn't specify a direction is an example of your attempting to justify your position with a semantic trick, it is all you actually have to pretend that your position might be valid because you certainly don't have any evidence, just your tiny little doubts. LOL

But you see my point.

 

[leroy]

Then tell us oh wise one, what other demonstrable mechanisms are involved. No sky pixies, just something we can study to see if you have any reason to call us naive instead of realizing that we are simplifying to major causes.

Or do you admit that you have nothing more than a pitiful semantic argument.

Us? Who is us? The only one in this forum that affirms that the eye evolved just by random mutations and natural selection is you



I don’t think there are any demonstrable mechanism that can explain the origin of the human eye nor any other complex organ or system………………the only one in this forum who claims to have such mechanism is you

 

[Pogo]

In other words, you agree with me, but you don’t what to admit t explicitly

That circles exist smaller than the circumference of the earth, Yeah, but what has this to do with the actual discussion? It is just another example of your pathetically childish semantic games.

 

[cladking]

This is why I have trouble following you at times. What does it mean to write, "I wouldn't know" immediately followed by its contradiction

All interpretation is context. One can not have every answer but still have some specific beliefs that rise to the level of being "knowledge". Still one must know that even things he knows might not be true. I'm pretty sure there's a place called "Moscow" but I know it is constantly changing and moving. If Moscow exists then you can't visit it twice. This is the nature of reality.

Of course this can't mean anything if you start with the assumption that it makes no sense. I assume everyone makes sense all the time and try to deduce what they mean.

If you're referring to the butterfly effect, my understanding is that the resulting weather disturbance days later is unpredictable, but not because what happens in between the flutter and the fury isn't deterministic. As I understand it, there are simply too many variables involved to know them and make the computation. No miracles or magic occur, just deterministic physics.

No. That's old thinking. Experiment has shown that any result is possible. Remember if you toss a coin a million times every single result is just as likely as every other result. It is exactly as likely to come up heads every time as anything else. Other than free will no sort of determinism appears to apply to reality. All events appear to begin randomly at the subatomic level. 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.

My claim was the universe requires no apparent intelligent supervision to function as it appears to function to us, which you both did and didn't know about. Did you introduce this concept to contradict that claim? If so, I don't think it does.

No, I just ignored the claim because I believe it is unknowable. Until all relevant terms are defined it can't be studied. The concept of "God" arises from logic but our religious concept of "God" I believe arises from confusion spawned by the tower of babel; the change in language. I certainly don't know and remarkably enough don't really have an opinion any longer. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes the incidence of atheism with age seems to decrease.

They're both abstractions drawn from physical referents - individual examples of biological species and fitness.

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).

By removing the individual from the equation you are removing every single difference and you are removing every consciousness. If consciousness is the cause of change as I maintain (remember the least rabbit like individuals survive) then you have factored the actual cause of change in species right out of "Evolution".

You see "fitness" where it doesn't exist. You see gradual change despite the fact all observed change in all life at every level is sudden. You are simply imagining a gradual change of whales coming out of the ocean and then returning.

OK. You're not alone, but you are anomalous (I know you like that word) in not (to my knowledge) being a literalist Abrahamist creationist.

Well.... I believe the Bible is based on literal truth. I'm specifically referring to the Old testament as I'm unfamiliar with the New Testament. Much of it will never be understood but more of it will. Believe it or not our ancestors were not sun addled bumpkins. But all their foundational work was based on ancient science that they couldn't understand. They copied it without change as well as they could. But this copying resulted in some very incomprehensible things that they sometimes "smoothed over" so they made sense.

Ancient science was remarkable and far more advanced than perhaps even I can imagine. But it was weak in things like chemistry, mechanics, optics, and most technology. It was very strong in things like biology, "phycology", anatomy, and zoology. Its nature led to understanding and the ability to manipulate the environment with minimal effort. But its metaphysics was language itself and this became increasingly complex as knowledge increased and it had to give way in the long run to a language that ordinary people could speak. The name of the event that suddenly changed the language and gave rise to homo omnisciencis is known only as the "Tower of Babel". While I'm not really a " literalist Abrahamist creationist", I do still believe the Bible is literally true from the perspective of the natural logic of the human brain. While it is accurate, precise, literal, and true it still must be unraveled. Unraveling it will probably require the reinvention of ancient science and applying its knowledge to the Bible.

Reality is most highly complex. It bends to our will while still reflecting everything in existence and that has been in existence.

We aren't so complex in some ways since we each see what we believe. We act on those beliefs and eventually become them.

 

[Valjean]

I used epigenetics as an example of a mechanism that causes small changes but not necesairly big changes

Given that you didn’t explicitly disagreed with any of my claims I will move on and assume that you agree

Epiegnetics is a bad example. Epigenetic changes are not selective or necessarily beneficial, and they tend to fade in succeeding generations.

Agree, it would be naive to suggest that the eye evolved just by random mutations + natural selection

Why? How else would it have evolved?

Yes but the fact that the puppies are not the same, doesn’t automatically prove that they evolved from a fish (additional evidence is required)

It demonstrates the reproductive variation that nature selects from.
The evidence that humans are also mammals, vertebrates, &c is there for anyone to review.
I don't think you understand the context of fish-to-man evolution.

And perhaps you do have that evidence , my point is that you need more than “just small changes”

So... what would I need? Big changes?
What mechanism are you proposing?

 

[leroy]

Why would an ocean be a barrier? A sand grain could just as easily move across the ocean floor as across land.
You're nitpicking. You get my point.

Ok but you need additional evidence in order to support the claim that the grain of sand will move though the ocean floor……………… perhaps you do have that evidence (who knows) my point is that you do need that additional evidence

What's an "IC complex step?"

An IC step is a “step” that requires multiple random mutations in order to get a selectable benefit. (if you dotn have all the mutations at the same time, you get no selective benefits)

But this is only a problem for people like @Pogo who claims that organism evolved just by random mutations + natural selection ………..people like us ( and the scientific community) who acknowledge that probably there are other mechanisms don’t have to deal with this problem

BTW this is a Good opportunity to correct pogo and disprove my claims and accusations on how people like you react

 

[Pogo]

But you see my point.

I see it, I only bothered to take apart one of his obstructionist arguments.
It is all he presents, there might be another explanation, so therefore my sky daddy explanation is equivalent to yours because you have not provided infinite detail.
Somebody posted here recently on the futility of using logic and reason against Morton's Demon, but we still do because I guess we have faith in the impossible dream.

Either that or baser motives such as wasting time in avoidance of what we should be doing or whatever else may motivate us to this Einstinian insane behaviour..

 

[Pogo]

Us? Who is us? The only one in this forum that affirms that the eye evolved just by random mutations and natural selection is you



I don’t think there are any demonstrable mechanism that can explain the origin of the human eye nor any other complex organ or system………………the only one in this forum who claims to have such mechanism is you

So you admit that your only reason for questioning whether RM+NS might not be adequate to explain the evolution of the eye was your desire to insert your sky daddy.

Yes?

Back at you.

 

[leroy]

That circles exist smaller than the circumference of the earth, Yeah, but what has this to do with the actual discussion? It is just another example of your pathetically childish semantic games.

The original point that I made relevant to the discussion is that evidence for small changes by itself doesn’t automatically show that big changes occur (additional evidence is requires)

Since you didn’t object to this point, I am assuming that you agree…………

 

[Valjean]

Us? Who is us? The only one in this forum that affirms that the eye evolved just by random mutations and natural selection is you

I don’t think there are any demonstrable mechanism that can explain the origin of the human eye nor any other complex organ or system………………the only one in this forum who claims to have such mechanism is you

The evolutionary sequences leading to human eyes has been done to death. The evidence is so obvious and in-your-face that a child could see it. We have multiple, living examples of each stage of the development.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right in front of your nose, if you'd care to look.

That answers it in your opinion I suppose. Anyway, thanks and the discussion is basically over but I thank you for trying.

 

[Pogo]

Ok but you need additional evidence in order to support the claim that the grain of sand will move though the ocean floor……………… perhaps you do have that evidence (who knows) my point is that you do need that additional evidence



An IC step is a “step” that requires multiple random mutations in order to get a selectable benefit. (if you dotn have all the mutations at the same time, you get no selective benefits)

But this is only a problem for people like @Pogo who claims that organism evolved just by random mutations + natural selection ………..people like us ( and the scientific community) who acknowledge that probably there are other mechanisms don’t have to deal with this problem

BTW this is a Good opportunity to correct pogo and disprove my claims and accusations on how people like you react

@ Leroy, Go read Behe and Snoke again, they disproved their own hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity in 2005.
Only you claim that we claim that RM+NS is the only mechanism.
Some of us have expanded our understanding since 1859.

 

[Valjean]

Ok but you need additional evidence in order to support the claim that the grain of sand will move though the ocean floor……………… perhaps you do have that evidence (who knows) my point is that you do need that additional evidence

STOP it, already! It's just an analogy. I'm sure you can see my point. Small changes can accumulate into big changes.

An IC step is a “step” that requires multiple random mutations in order to get a selectable benefit. (if you dotn have all the mutations at the same time, you get no selective benefits)

No. That's demonstrable nonsense. Puppies in a litter are all different -- and it's not due to mutation.
A single variation: longer hair or legs, or smaller size, can confer definite benefits -- or disadvantages.

But this is only a problem for people like @Pogo who claims that organism evolved just by random mutations + natural selection ………..people like us ( and the scientific community) who acknowledge that probably there are other mechanisms don’t have to deal with this problem

???? -- I don't see the problem. There are multiple mechanisms of evolution.

BTW this is a Good opportunity to correct pogo and disprove my claims and accusations on how people like you react

Sorry, not following.

 

[cladking]

Probably better to say "always formatable in words" rather than imply the words are fundamentally required. "Ineffable" seems to be a notion people felt would get some use if given a word. Do you have a theory of how language evolved. I'd say it started as singing but language functions off of metaphor with everything being like something else or some combination of somethings else.

I think of language as primarily evolved for person to person communication. Using it intrapersonally creates more distance between our thoughts and the world than necessary.

You're probably right but I believe it's always formattable in words because language becomes the very wiring of the brain. The only way to think outside of language is to model something different. I can only achieve this while trying to decipher Ancient Language. Even then when I stop to think the formatting is still there.

Yes. I believe 40,000 years ago proto-humans had a very simple animal language and a single speech center (Wernicke's area). It probably employed about 2000 words but it was like computer language and nothing at all like what we speak. An individual arose (I know only as "Sah" but might underlie the concept of "Adam" in the Bible) whom had a mutation tying the speech center to higher brain functions. This allowed much more ability to manipulate both language and human knowledge but more importantly it allowed humans to pass down knowledge generationally leading to the ability to learn from past masters,. As knowledge increased the complexity and vocabulary soared. About 3200 BC language became so complex that the less witted were having great difficulty speaking it at all. So to communicate with the few who spoke a pidgin form of the language that was just like our language writing had to be invented. As time went by there were not enough people speaking Ancient Language to even operate the state so in a world wide event the official language was changed to the many different pidgin languages and confusion arose. So did "homo omnisciencis". The few surviving Ancient Language speakers were known as "Nephilim" but they died out (homo sapiens went extinct) about 1400 BC.

There's a huge difference in the languages and this is invisible to linguists because they believe ancient people were superstitious and ignorant. Early homo omniscience of course knew their ancestors were powerful and wise so tried to preserve everything. But they had no science so it was impossible to understand homo sapiens. They copied it the best they could. Even almost every copy didn't survive so what we have are copies of copies of copies and they are all confused. Ancient people just like everybody always made sense in terms of their premises but homo sapiens always made sense in terms of reality itself.

I doubt anything in reality "evolves". Certainly things can change gradually or become more complex but most real change comes all at once. A subducted region endures increasing pressure until it breaks and causes massive earthquakes. Magma rises in the earth until it breaks the surface and spews great quantities of smoke, ash, and lava. a boy grows and "suddenly" becomes a man. But even the boy's growth occurs in spurts where there is no real growth for months on end and then he suddenly tacks on 3". It's the nature of life to occur suddenly and life is a microcosm of reality itself. Life is reality on steroids (literally).

Now days language does sort of evolve but this is because we are taught change in language is good.

While Ancient Language was universal and mutually intelligible there were probably many ways to express it including chirping or singing. It was its complexity that did it in.

 

[gnostic]

Well try reading the whole post, perhaps you will find an answer to your question

@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 …. Otherwise Lamarkinian evolution would be true (because we observe small changes produced by Lamarkinian mechanisms)

You could simply reply “ yes Leroy you are correct @Valjean is wrong in that particular statement” and invite him to admit and correct his mistakes…………… but 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.

The current sciences are genetics that were originally based on Mendel’s framework, not on Lamarkinian’s model. And the Mendelian inheritance, expanded as we understand molecular biology, especially proteins and nucleic acids…these two macromolecules worked together in the cells, to form life, to reproduce and to pass on traits to new generations.

Evolution is mainly about the diversity of the populations, Natural Selection is just of several different types of evolutionary and genetic mechanisms. Mutations is the other mechanism, as are changes to the frequency of alleles (Genetic Drift), is another mechanism. Two or more populations of different species intermixing that produce hybrid species (Gene Flow). Genetic Hitchhiking is where changes to genes of one population may result in changes to genes of nearby population(s).

Like Mendelian genetics have been expanded and updated, as biologists understand more about genes and DNA, likewise Natural Selection has modernised, going beyond Darwin’s original framework, due to new information.

Lamarkinian Evolution is outdated models that no one used today, so why bring up something that is obsolete?

I think it is simply a tactics to distract members that you really have no viable alternative to the models of Evolution. You want to get rid of Evolution anyway you possibly can, even if have to resort reviving defunct theory…it is sort of like you are asking people to reverted back to debunked Flat Earth or back to the Geometric Planetary system of Ptolemy.

 

[Valjean]

The original point that I made relevant to the discussion is that evidence for small changes by itself doesn’t automatically show that big changes occur (additional evidence is requires)

Since you didn’t object to this point, I am assuming that you agree…………

And yet we see big changes all around us.
There was a time when no life existed on Earth. Now we see it.
Most of the species we see in the world didn't exist in the past. Where did they come from?
Many (most) ancient species no longer exist. What happened to them?

 

[Valjean]

That answers it in your opinion I suppose. Anyway, thanks and the discussion is basically over but I thank you for trying.

Not my opinion. The evidence is everywhere. You choose not to seek it, and to ignore it when it's presented.

 

[leroy]

That circles exist smaller than the circumference of the earth, Yeah, but what has this to do with the actual discussion? It is just another example of your pathetically childish semantic games.

The original point that I made relevant to the discussion is that evidence for small changes by itself doesn’t automatically show that big changes occur (additional evidence is requires)

Since you didn’t object to this point, I am assuming that you agree…………

Only you claim that we claim that RM+NS is the only mechanism.
Some of us have expanded our understanding since 1859.

In this quote from a few minutes ago it is obvious that you are asserting that RM and NS are the only mechanisms


I said

leroy said:
Agree, it would be naive to suggest that the eye evolved just by random mutations + natural selection

you replied:

Then tell us oh wise one, what other demonstrable mechanisms are involved. No sky pixies, just something we can study to see if you have any reason to call us naive instead of realizing that we are simplifying to major causes.

Or do you admit that you have nothing more than a pitiful semantic argument.