Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[leroy]

Here is your error. The Iliad and the Odessey just like the New Testament were not historical documents. They may contain facts but to treat them as historical is to completely misunderstand them. They are representations of truth within the context of a religion. Treating them as truth of factual events is to degrade thier meaning.

The gospels where Greco-Roman biografies..... This means that the author's where "trying" to describe what they thought was true about Jesus's life and teachings

The gospels are full of embarrassing details that played against the purposes of such documents .... For example many aspects of Jesus where inconsistent with the messianic expectations of that time.......if the gospels are just made up fairy tails ... Why would the author's create a character that fits those expectations.



The Odesy is just science fiction. Homer was not even trying to report historical events

 

[cladking]

But you reject or ignore all the evidence. Your second sentence above is an example.

We each interpret evidence differently. How do you think a scientist and a rabbi or two scientists come to different conclusions. Spoiler alert; the one you disagree with is neither stupid nor crazy. We each interpret reality according to different premises and "evidence". When two scientists disagree they are probably both wrong but odds are good one is less wrong than the other and you don't have the expertise to pick him out.

Scientists who believe in punctuated equilibrium I believe are less wrong than Darwin and other scientists and I've stated the evidence, logic, experiment, and the Darwin's false assumptions ad infinitum. Like all homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio you just can't exist outside your own beliefs in order to see the evidence that shows you wrong. You've bought into the status quo.

These threads are full of evidence.

I can see the evidence you present and I've always listed my reasons for believing it is irrelevant to change in species. Nobody ever wants to talk about this though because it is metaphysics and strikes at the very heart of knowledge and what is real.

Why doesn't anyone ever explain to me how it's possible that all observed change of all types seen in the lives of all individuals , groups of individuals, and consciousness itself is sudden but that this simple truism doesn't apply to the abstraction that Darwin called "species"? You will again for the one thousandth time ignore this or simply claim it isn't true. And then you won't give me a single example or argument that shows how or why reality doesn't even apply to Darwin and the status quo.

Science does not choose what suits its belief. It tailors its beliefs to fit the evidence.

This is and always has been the only universal characteristic of our species. Unfortunately for each of us the evidence comes into existence like a perfectly tailored suit of clothes. We are all naked and wearing nothing but what we believe.

Science is no different but our clothes are woven on the loom of reality. We don't get a better fit but many of the threads fit together more precisely and more in agreement with opacity desired in clothes. Any sort of logic and reason can create this effect so long as it's founded in experiment. You can't interpolate opacity into abstractions. So long as we deal in abstractions there is no hiding. So long as any reality arises from or is expressed in abstractions we are more nude than not.

Science's suits are its beliefs.

What's consciousness have to do with evolution?

I've done so many times, in many ways, and in many threads. It is invisible to you. I've done this so many times that I can get it all in a sentence! It used to take many paragraphs you wouldn't read or even see. "Life is consciousness that changes suddenly at bottlenecks because nature selects for unusual behavior which is a product of genes and experience."

There it is again to be wholly ignored or gainsaid with no experimental basis for that gainsaying.

19th C.beliefs? You must mean religion....

All beliefs are founded in something and 19th century science was largely founded in age old superstition as well as religion. Even Darwin was religious. He wasn't wrong because he was religious, he was wrong because he applied all of his beliefs and they were wrong. He saw evidence only in terms of what he believed just like everyone else. I've listed many dozens of Darwin's false assumptions many many times across many many posts but these are invisible as well. Remember he believed in steady populations and consciousness doesn't matter? All of his assumptions were false yet we've still adopted his conclusions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok but do you deny/reject any of the 4 points that I made in the comment that you are responding ?

Clearly 3 and 4 are just wild unsupported claims so of course I reject them as written. That you did not support them does not automatically make them false, but the odds of you being wrong appears to be rather high.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatever you may say, I find many here that firmly believe in the process of evolution from beginning to the present, not really honest. They may think they're honest, but their posts reveal otherwise.

Honesty is about intent.
You (the Bible thumper) are honest.
I (the heathen) am honest.
Disagreement isn't dishonesty.
Just one of us being wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well winner is still yours, but as I think I may have intimated in at least one of my posts, this is not actually a paper but the quote in question is only the introduction to a short blurb telling readers that the researchers in question have identified some new mechanisms for mutation.
Nothing in the original quote or follow up had anything to do with review, as I said, it was an introduction expressing what an assumed audience would have learned in HS.
My objection is that in even questioning this innocuous introduction to a press release, we have those who are claiming without justification that it is evidence that we do not understand evolution.
This has become a tiresome mantra of "we don't know everything, so therefore we don;t know anything and whatever I believe is just as valid."

It is late and a beautiful night, if you have further whatever, I am trying to be a good boy so maybe contact me offline.

I see. These complaints aren't even with the research paper, but with the popular summary that heralds it. Wow!

Shoot the messenger never seemed more apt.

I suppose that when one is drowning in a sea of evidence and reason, one will grasp at any straw or straw man to save oneself.

 

[YoursTrue]

Honesty is about intent.
You (the Bible thumper) are honest.
I (the heathen) am honest.
Disagreement isn't dishonesty.
Just one of us being wrong.

Although I liked your post, when people decide right from wrong, or make a decision based on evidence (and that sometimes of those considered experts), they can make a 'wrong' decision. Thank you for your respectful reply.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see. These complaints aren't even with the research paper, but with the popular summary that heralds it. Wow!

Shoot the messenger never seemed more apt.

I suppose that when one is drowning in a sea of evidence and reason, one will grasp at any straw or straw man to save oneself.

Now I do believe in evolution, but for valid as rational as per the post you answered you do in the end run into Agrippa's Trilemma for justification(valid).
So in effect either metdological naturalism is knowledge in the old sense of philosophy or it is a belief system just like anyone else.
The same goes for evidence and reason.
So either you are old school and can do justified true beliefs or you do a system of axiomatic assumptions with evdience for those(methodological naturalism).

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, thanks for your in-depth post. It helped me to see where I was wrong.

But I do think that the usage of ‘some’, ‘some’ & ‘some’ (which accounts for the whole) implies an equal measure; hence that can be misleading. We know these 3 types of mutations are not found equally by a long shot.

Thanks for your amicable responses.

4.10: Mutation Effects

bio.libretexts.org

Effects of Mutations​

The majority of mutations have neither negative nor positive effects on the organism in which they occur. These mutations are called neutral mutations. Examples include silent point mutations. They are neutral because they do not change the amino acids in the proteins they encode.

Many other mutations have no effect on the organism because they are repaired beforeprotein synthesis occurs. Cells have multiple repair mechanisms to fix mutations in DNA. One way DNA can be repaired is illustrated in Figure below. If a cell’s DNA is permanently damaged and cannot be repaired, the cell is likely to be prevented from dividing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Although I liked your post, when people decide right from wrong, or make a decision based on evidence (and that sometimes of those considered experts), they can make a 'wrong' decision. Thank you for your respectful reply.

Now if you can solve Agrippa's Trilemma for justified true beliefs as for knowledge, you are right. Otherwise you are wrong just like the rest of us.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now if you can solve Agrippa's Trilemma for justified true beliefs as for knowledge, you are right. Otherwise you are wrong just like the rest of us.

To be honest, from what I see about scientific investigations, scientists are able to closely examine many aspects of biological mechanisms which they were not able to do years ago. While fascinating to some, it does not mean it verifies the theory of evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be honest, from what I see about scientific investigations, scientists are able to closely examine many aspects of biological mechanisms which they were not able to do years ago. While fascinating to some, it does not mean it verifies the theory of evolution.

I argue that it does verify the ToE.
But it doesn't prove the ToE.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To be honest, from what I see about scientific investigations, scientists are able to closely examine many aspects of biological mechanisms which they were not able to do years ago. While fascinating to some, it does not mean it verifies the theory of evolution.

No, right now we are debating what knowledge is as such. Or if you are wrong as such if you claim you have knowledge about objective reality.
So what is your justification if you claim that you have knowledge?

 

[shunyadragon]

Now if you can solve Agrippa's Trilemma for justified true beliefs as for knowledge, you are right. Otherwise you are wrong just like the rest of us.

I do not believe there is any final resolution to solve Agrippa's Trilemma for justified "true beliefs as for knowledge,, because of the subjective basis for 'beliefs. I do find a consistent problem from the fundamentalist, and other extreme beliefs in the justification of beliefs in contradiction of objective knowledge of the nature of our physical existence, and other archeological and historical knowledge, The following comes close to my view of the problem od Agrippa's Trilemma:

Loading…

www.yorku.ca

The foundationalist position traditionally embraces the second portion of this trilemma in adverse reaction to the first portion of the trilemma. Because it is absurd to talk of an infinite regress of justified beliefs (and circular argumentation is simply not an option for the foundationalist) the solution to this trilemma must be contained in determining a proper foundation for beliefs that will not require further justification. Direct or immediate beliefs constitute the foundation upon which this system of justification is built. The ‘superstructure’1 that rests upon this foundation is constructed with mediate or indirect beliefs. In order for a mediate belief to be justified it must stand in a particular relation to one of the foundational (immediate) beliefs. Justification of those immediate, foundational beliefs usually occur via experience, though they can often occurs through ‘self-evidence’ or some form of ‘self-warrant’. In all cases of immediate belief it does seem as though belief will function to ‘record’ some aspect of experience that is supposedly directly given whether it be via some qualitative aspect of experience or concept that is simply deemed ‘obvious’, for even ‘self-evident’ concepts must at some point be experienced. Presumably, an original foundational belief sits at the base of a multiply branching tree structure that allows the justification of further mediate beliefs.2

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We each interpret evidence differently. How do you think a scientist and a rabbi or two scientists come to different conclusions. Spoiler alert; the one you disagree with is neither stupid nor crazy. We each interpret reality according to different premises and "evidence". When two scientists disagree they are probably both wrong but odds are good one is less wrong than the other and you don't have the expertise to pick him out.

But you claim your interpretation as the only valid interpretation. You make statements of fact with no support, evidence or valid reasoning to carry over.

Merely claiming and believing an interpretation is wrong doesn't make it wrong. You have to demonstrate it is wrong and you are not known for doing that.

Scientists who believe in punctuated equilibrium I believe are less wrong than Darwin and other scientists and I've stated the evidence, logic, experiment, and the Darwin's false assumptions ad infinitum. Like all homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio you just can't exist outside your own beliefs in order to see the evidence that shows you wrong. You've bought into the status quo.

Punctuated equilibrium is about the mode of evolution and not a replacement of the theory.

I have no idea what homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio is or is supposed to represent. What I have observed is that this is something you made up. It has meaning only to you. Noting this is not a matter of confusion over interpretation, since the usage is never explained or supported to demonstrate relevance or validity. Considering that, it has no value in these conversations and is not referring to, related to or considered as science and meaningful to the conversation.

It has been routinely pointed out that you create these new terms with secret, personal definitions that confuse attempts at discussion.

I can see the evidence you present and I've always listed my reasons for believing it is irrelevant to change in species.

You've made claims. It always ends there.

Nobody ever wants to talk about this though because it is metaphysics and strikes at the very heart of knowledge and what is real.

We are all here to talk about these things. You just never explain and support your claims. You haven't explained your position on metaphysics and what you mean by it. The best you have been able to do is send others to outside sources to seek explanation. That's not really helping you are presenting anything that shows you even understand.

Why doesn't anyone ever explain to me how it's possible that all observed change of all types seen in the lives of all individuals , groups of individuals, and consciousness itself is sudden

It has been explained numerous times. You ignore the explanations and repeat this refuted claim about change and that no one has ever explained it.

As well, you have never supported the claim except through repetition. This is well-established in all the threads you have participated in.

Your non-response is driving others away from what I have observed.

but that this simple truism doesn't apply to the abstraction that Darwin called "species"?

It is established that it is not a truism. Not only established on your failure to present an argument, but on the facts that change in living things is not universally sudden as demonstrated by all the evidence of change that has been presented.

Species do not reproduce offspring that are different species. The theory does not claim nor imply that. You claim and imply it. The idea doesn't even makes sense and is certainly represented in the evidence.

You will again for the one thousandth time ignore this or simply claim it isn't true.

Responses have only been seen to be ignored by you.

And then you won't give me a single example or argument that shows how or why reality doesn't even apply to Darwin and the status quo.

Lots of examples and explanations have been presented to you. You have ignored the explanations and examples and simply repeat your claim.

This is and always has been the only universal characteristic of our species.

This claim doesn't speak well of your understanding of the characteristics of our species.

Unfortunately for each of us the evidence comes into existence like a perfectly tailored suit of clothes. We are all naked and wearing nothing but what we believe.

Nebulous and non-responsive.

Science is no different but our clothes are woven on the loom of reality. We don't get a better fit but many of the threads fit together more precisely and more in agreement with opacity desired in clothes. Any sort of logic and reason can create this effect so long as it's founded in experiment. You can't interpolate opacity into abstractions. So long as we deal in abstractions there is no hiding. So long as any reality arises from or is expressed in abstractions we are more nude than not.

Repeating a nebulous metaphor seems only to serve a non-responsive paradigm.

Science's suits are its beliefs.

Useless, nebulous opinion in more than just my view I would say.

I've done so many times, in many ways, and in many threads.

You have repeated nebulous claims regarding consciousness and evolution.

It is invisible to you.

No! Your claims are openly recognized and responded to. I don't think those responses are invisible to you. It seems as if you can't respond to them in any meaningful way, so you turn fault onto others.

I've done this so many times that I can get it all in a sentence!

Here's a sentence that covers it all. You have not responded with anything meaningful regarding your claims about consciousness. This fact is invisible to no one according to the evidence.

It used to take many paragraphs you wouldn't read or even see. "Life is consciousness that changes suddenly at bottlenecks because nature selects for unusual behavior which is a product of genes and experience."

What "life is consciousness" has meaning only to you. Bottlenecks have been explained and defined for you ad nauseum. In turn, you have not supported the claim at all except through repetition.

There is no evidence that speciation results from the nebulous mechanism of selecting a behavior that is the product of experience. That would be the defunct mechanism of acquired characteristics.

Your claim of sudden change has been falsified. Regularly.

There it is again to be wholly ignored or gainsaid with no experimental basis for that gainsaying.

NO! You have never explained anything you mean about consciousness and consciousness and evolution beyond the repetition of claims.

All beliefs are founded in something and 19th century science was largely founded in age old superstition as well as religion. Even Darwin was religious. He wasn't wrong because he was religious, he was wrong because he applied all of his beliefs and they were wrong. He saw evidence only in terms of what he believed just like everyone else. I've listed many dozens of Darwin's false assumptions many many times across many many posts but these are invisible as well. Remember he believed in steady populations and consciousness doesn't matter? All of his assumptions were false yet we've still adopted his conclusions.

This is your opinion based on what you believe and nothing you have demonstrated. Like most of what you post, this claim is on heavy rotation.

You have never even listed the assumptions that underlay Darwin's formulation of the theory nor have you shown any to be false. Not many posts or even one. What I have concluded is that you think claiming something is demonstrating it and that your claims stand as fact without need of any support and should be accepted as some sort of revealed truth. That is a religion and not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I argue that it does verify the ToE.
But it doesn't prove the ToE.

And verification is as good as it gets in the sciences. There is no absolute proof. but the theory of evolution has been verified millions of times in millions of ways. Creationism at best has only been shown to be wrong in claim after claim. And I say "at best" because a good scientist can use the times that he or she has been shown to be wrong to help to find out how to be right. Though sadly creationists do not seem to be interested in that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Although I liked your post, when people decide right from wrong, or make a decision based on evidence (and that sometimes of those considered experts), they can make a 'wrong' decision. Thank you for your respectful reply.

And since it is possible that a person can make a mistake, then you hang onto that as if mistakes were made. You haven't shown that mistakes were made.

Are you not a person that can make mistakes?

Perhaps it is you that is mistaken.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And verification is as good as it gets in the sciences. There is no absolute proof. but the theory of evolution has been verified millions of times in millions of ways. Creationism at best has only been shown to be wrong in claim after claim. And I say "at best" because a good scientist can use the times that he or she has been shown to be wrong to help to find out how to be right. Though sadly creationists do not seem to be interested in that.

Well, yes. If you assume methodlogical naturalism. But there is no verification for methodological naturalism. That is the base for that verification makes sense.

To understand the difference between truth/proof and evidence you have to do philosphy and philosophy of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Although I liked your post, when people decide right from wrong,

Are you saying that accepting science is wrong?

or make a decision based on evidence (and that sometimes of those considered experts), they can make a 'wrong' decision.

People can make wrong decisions, but you are suggesting a string of wrong decisions 100's of years long. You are also suggesting that it isn't the evidence that the decisions are based on but only on the word of previous scientists. Where is the evidence for this?

Thank you for your respectful reply.

You get what you are given. I too would appreciate respectful replies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be honest, from what I see about scientific investigations, scientists are able to closely examine many aspects of biological mechanisms which they were not able to do years ago. While fascinating to some, it does not mean it verifies the theory of evolution.

You are quite wrong. Perhaps you do not understand the terminology again. A theory is verified every time that we see that the predictions that it makes are correct, and that has happened countless times.

Here is an exceedingly simple example. You pick up a hammer. You hold it out to your side at shoulder height. You drop it. Using even Galilean gravity you can predict that it will fall, how fast it will accelerate, and what speed it will be going when it hits the ground. That would verify Galilean gravity but it would not "prove" it. Nothing is ever proven in the sciences, but claims are verified quite often.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are quite wrong. Perhaps you do not understand the terminology again. A theory is verified every time that we see that the predictions that it makes are correct, and that has happened countless times.

Here is an exceedingly simple example. You pick up a hammer. You hold it out to your side at shoulder height. You drop it. Using even Galilean gravity you can predict that it will fall, how fast it will accelerate, and what speed it will be going when it hits the ground. That would verify Galilean gravity but it would not "prove" it. Nothing is ever proven in the sciences, but claims are verified quite often.

Your example is too simple. Evolution relies on in part the assumption that the overall regularities of the present are the same for the past.
As far as I can tell that is what @YoursTrue doubt.