Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

I assume you parsed my sentence wrong because you assume in advance I'm wrong.

I'm sure you must know that each flip has about a 50:50 chance of being heads or tails so the result is as likely to be all heads as anything else whatsoever. If you don't believe me try flipping a heads then a heads then a tails, h, t, h, t, t, t, h, t, h, t, h, h, etc. I'm sure you'll quickly see it is equally easy to hit all heads.

Each individual flip has a 50:50 chance. A hundred flips has scant chance of all being heads.

I guess I stand corrected. The Bible doesn't exist and neither do the Sumerian versions. Everything you don't believe is unevidenced and everything you do believe is backed up by experiment, but you can't think of one right this minute.

Huh?

Evidence says otherwise. They invented the calendar which required math and astronomy and agriculture which required the Theory of Change in Species. They were familiar with the hydraulic cycle which required some mechanics and chemistry. They had a great deal of knowledge for which we refuse to give them credit because it would shake our belief in linear progress which Darwin needed to invent Evolution. We can't see what we don't believe just like you can't see the countless experiments that prove we can't see what we don't believe. We reason in circles which is OK if you already know everything.

Yes, they developed utilitarian skills. They still didn't know they were on a sphere orbiting the sun. They didn't understand disease, or weather, or chemistry, or geology, or biology.

Ancient science was simple observational science based in language just like bee science and beaver science. It did not share our metaphysics and was dependent on logic rather than experiment.

It wasn't science. It was trial and error, or folklore.

Science, computer code, Bee, Gazelle, etc etc.

Only a modern person can believe this. Even 50 ,years ago nobody would have believed such a thing.

Balderdash.

Maybe if you read my post again you'd understand or least be able to ask a specific question.

Do you never affect reality or are you the guy sitting at the green light waiting for your accelerator to be pushed?

I affect observed reality. I make no claims of magic, metaphysics or invisible gods.

 

[Valjean]

I doubt it. You may not, but I do not see any (real) evidence beyond conjecture that fish evolved eventually over a long period of time to become humans. Do you think that fish are evolving now?

Why wouldn't they be?
You choose not to see the abundant and ubiquitous evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

I need to remind you that you do not know what "real evidence" is since you refuse to even discuss the concept. And please prove that it is "conjecture". I sincerely doubt if you can do that since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Ah, Subduction Zone, glad to see you again! I was hoping everything was alright with you. I was just looking at an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica and see the word 'hypothesis' used for some things scientists don't know or see the *evidence* for.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why wouldn't they be?
You choose not to see the abundant and ubiquitous evidence.

That's what I'm asking you -- if you think fish are evolving now. Thank you. Btw, evidence of fish evolving now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, Subduction Zone, glad to see you again! I was hoping everything was alright with you. I was just looking at an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica and see the word 'hypothesis' used for some things scientists don't know or see the *evidence* for.

You may have not understood it, though Britannica is not the best of sources. A hypothesis can have evidence. And scientists can be very sure quite often if a hypothesis in general is correct or not. But something that is still in the hypothetical stage is not fully understood yet.

By the way, the theory of evolution is well past the hypothetical stage. Abiogenesis is still hypothetical, but we do have strong evidence for it. And there is no scientific evidence for any other explanation. That is largely the fault of creationists. For some odd reason creationists are afraid to put their ideas into proper testable scientific forms. That is why it is just pseudoscience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what I'm asking you -- if you think fish are evolving now. Thank you. Btw, evidence of fish evolving now?

And here you admit once again that you have no understanding of evolution at all.

 

[Pogo]

I need to remind you that you do not know what "real evidence" is since you refuse to even discuss the concept. And please prove that it is "conjecture". I sincerely doubt if you can do that since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

It should also be noted that while @YoursTrue is complaining about the inadequacy of the evolutionary explanation, she has not offered anything at all as an alternative. It seems just one more example of belligerent denial being used to support an untenable position. Pidgeon Chess at its finest.

 

[shunyadragon]

The information they have may not really fit in with the proposition. But it may be interpreted to fit.

Sounds more like your agenda based on the Bible and without science.

 

[YoursTrue]

You may have not understood it, though Britannica is not the best of sources. A hypothesis can have evidence. And scientists can be very sure quite often if a hypothesis in general is correct or not. But something that is still in the hypothetical stage is not fully understood yet.

By the way, the theory of evolution is well past the hypothetical stage. Abiogenesis is still hypothetical, but we do have strong evidence for it. And there is no scientific evidence for any other explanation. That is largely the fault of creationists. For some odd reason creationists are afraid to put their ideas into proper testable scientific forms. That is why it is just pseudoscience.

I don't believe in extra sensory perception,but that's what I thought you would say...kinda like National Graphic, you didn't like their comment about sediment flowing. Welcome back.

 

[YoursTrue]

It should also be noted that while @YoursTrue is complaining about the inadequacy of the evolutionary explanation, she has not offered anything at all as an alternative. It seems just one more example of belligerent denial being used to support an untenable position. Pidgeon Chess at its finest.

I leave alternatives for the most part up to others right now.

 

[YoursTrue]

It should also be noted that while @YoursTrue is complaining about the inadequacy of the evolutionary explanation, she has not offered anything at all as an alternative. It seems just one more example of belligerent denial being used to support an untenable position. Pidgeon Chess at its finest.

I'm not complaining by the way, just saying...between fossils it's all ... Oh let me think of the right word...not conjecture or guesswork oh yes, hypothesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

And here you admit once again that you have no understanding of evolution at all.

Evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe in extra sensory perception,but that's what I thought you would say...kinda like National Graphic, you didn't like their comment about sediment flowing. Welcome back.

Maybe there is some hope. You can see what you are doing wrong.


By the way, you have not supported your obviously false claim about others again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence?

Your post is the evidence.

 

[John53]

Evidence?

Your posts

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Speciation does not occur in those species that survive a bottleneck. The survivors of a bottleneck event are the same species that they were before the bottleneck. A bottleneck event reduces the numbers of a species and often leads to a radical reduction in the genetic variation of a population. It does not change the survivors into a new species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If the total population of a species was composed of 10,000 individuals and 9,500 of those individuals were killed in a volcanic eruption, the remaining 500 members of the population would be the same species they were before the eruption. They would be much fewer in number and the genetic variation is likely to have been radically reduced, because some the overall variation would have died with the 9,500 that were lost. The survivors would have the same genomes they started life with. If the population had not been reduced in number by some natural event, those 500 would still have that same genome and be the same species they were born as.

When a dog breeder discovers a new trait has appeared in the progeny of a breeding event and that breeder selects for that trait to fix it in a line of dogs, the resulting progeny are still the same species as their parents and other members of the same population. The breeder doesn't kill off all the dogs that do not have that trait.

The former is an example of a population bottleneck. The latter is not.

The latter is an example of artificial selection that doesn't reduce the population or the genetic variation of the species. It is simply the act of selecting a trait that the breeder thinks may be useful and fixing it in a portion of the population.

Collies, Dobermans, and Dachshunds are all different breeds of dogs with obvious variation in their genetics that is reflected in their different phenotypes, but they are all still in the species of dogs. Calling the selection that lead to the genesis of these breeds a population bottleneck is not in any way reasonable, sensible or aligned with the facts.

 

[B-psychedelic]

I find it rather sad that you've so far, not even attempted to respond to the actual substance of any post, and instead have used your response to just (wrongly) tell atheists what they think.

hhhhhmmmmmm, its rather unfortunate that atheists call Christians as creationist and what have you telling us what we believe but we cant do the same, double standard

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes it was meant to be a trivial point, no idea why @TagliatelliMonster has so much problems in understanding

I have no problems understanding it.
You're the one who's having problems understanding your false analogy.

When you are talking about a cause for space-time, then invoking another "computer" to explain the origins of the "first" computer, is exactly what you are doing.

To invoke causality is to invoke temporal conditions. The very thing you are supposedly trying to explain.

I'm also by far not the only one in this thread who has brought this to your attention.

What we have here, is a severe case of head-in-sand

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know that?

By definition of the words "cause" and "effects".
It is a sequence of events, one triggering the next. For event A to cause effect B, event A has to precede B.

As in: A happens BEFORE B. B happens AFTER A.

Without time, there is no "before" or "after". There is no sequence of events.

………..this is a highly controversial issue that is currently dividing experts form different areas

It's not "controversial". It's counter-intuitive.

…………… what information do you have that would end this controversy?

None required as there is no such controversy.