Evolution My ToE

[Darkstorn]

@Darkstorn By the way, is that your regular role for bailing on threads like these? Isn't that a waste? Or were you successful, at other times, and so, imagined you would be here? You picked the wrong cat this time.

Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful drug. You're the one bailing, and i want you to press that button.

Once more for good luck:

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

 

[nPeace]

Okay, let's see how this works.
I guess you are the winner. Do you feel full?
Bye bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Darkstorn By the way, is that your regular role for bailing on threads like these? Isn't that a waste? Or were you successful, at other times, and so, imagined you would be here? You picked the wrong cat this time.

Yep. You are right, nPeace. Facts, logic, evidence mean nothing to you, do they?

How many times did I offer to go over the concept of evidence with you? You pretended that the observation that you either do not understand the concept of evidence or are a liar was an attack. It was not. As I said it was an observation, and the offer was always genuine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, let's see how this works.
I guess you are the winner. Do you feel full?
Bye bye.

Hooray! Once more a dramatic example of running away and pretending that you won. That will surely convince him

 

[Darkstorn]

Okay, let's see how this works.
I guess you are the winner. Do you feel full?
Bye bye.

I feel like i just won the special olympics.

So naturally, i feel pretty special now!

I wonder how the guy who failed to respond to my arguments feels now?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Take a look in the Atheist DIR and you have countless people claiming that because there is no physical "proof" religion must be wrong

Then please quote one.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then please quote one.

It's not allowed as far as I know according to the forum rules to take from one Dir and use it in a different part of the forum. But you can go there to look for your self.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not allowed as far as I know according to the forum rules to take from one Dir and use it in a different part of the forum. But you can go there to look for your self.

Then can you please provide a link to such a post?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then can you please provide a link to such a post?

Link to the part of the forum Atheism DIR

There is a lot of negativity toward people who have a belief but since it is belief it can not verify by science. it's just stupid argument from nonbelievers

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Link to the part of the forum Atheism DIR

There is a lot of negativity toward people who have a belief but since it is belief it can not verify by science. it's just stupid argument from nonbelievers

Can you please link to a single instance of somebody claiming what you say atheists claim all the time?

I will not do your legwork for you, and I won't ask again.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Can you please link to a single instance of somebody claiming what you say atheists claim all the time?

I will not do your legwork for you, and I won't ask again.

I give up, sorry I am out of this thread. If you cant even look at a thread for your self and see it is negative, why bother speaking with you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I give up, sorry I am out of this thread. If you cant even look at a thread for your self and see it is negative, why bother speaking with you?

You made a claim. You didn't claim "atheists say negative stuff all the time". You claimed that atheists specifically said that because science cannot test religious claims then religious claims "must be wrong". You said atheists do this all the time, yet you cannot quote a single instance of an atheist claiming it on these forums.

Why not?

UPDATE:

I have since used the search function to search the Atheist DiR forum for the phrase "must be wrong", which turned up no results. I've broadened the search to just the word "testable", which produced only 8 results, none of which contain the statement that because religious claims aren't testable they must be wrong, or any variation of that argument.

 

[tas8831]

Seems like nPeace giving an opinion and a view. Would not call it ridiculous

So you employ double standards just like essentially all creationists. Got it.

I was on a forum several years ago, when a 'professional' creationist (Jon Sarfati) was enticed to show up. He immediately began calling people names, which was against the rules. The admin just... changed the rules to accommodate their creationist hero - said it was now OK to call names if you could justify it. Moral relativists and all that.

 

[ecco]

When we look at creation using nothing but the criteria that it was not created, but rather try to explain it all in any other way, that is not seeking. Keeping God out of their knowledge is not seeking. It is rejecting God and truth and the light and loving darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.

So, according to your way of thinking, science should evaluate the veracity of:

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was the chief of the animals. He saw the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. “It is impossible,” said he, “that he should be left alone; he must have a mate.” So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.
​

Oh, wait. Did you mean you think science should investigate the veracity of only your God's doings? That seems rather unfair.

Your creation myth hold no more water than the one above.

 

[exchemist]

I give up, sorry I am out of this thread. If you cant even look at a thread for your self and see it is negative, why bother speaking with you?

If you make claims you can't substantiate, you ought at the very least to admit it. Isn't that what your religion would advise you to do? We can all make mistakes, after all.

 

[ecco]

I give up, sorry I am out of this thread. If you cant even look at a thread for your self and see it is negative, why bother speaking with you?

This is just another example of a theist making false assertions and then telling others it is their burden to verify them.

 

[exchemist]

When we look at creation using nothing but the criteria that it was not created, but rather try to explain it all in any other way, that is not seeking. Keeping God out of their knowledge is not seeking. It is rejecting God and truth and the light and loving darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.

I regret to inform you that methodological naturalism is intrinsic to the scientific method of understanding nature. What science does is to find natural explanations of natural phenomena.

That does not mean we are all atheists. Plenty of scientists are religious believers. But it does mean that we do not insert God into our hypotheses when we do science. And that is something that will never change.

You, like plenty of scientists, may see the wonder of God as Creator in nature and how it works. But it is a basic error to try to look for scientific (objective, reproducible) evidence for God in nature. It is mixing disciplines to try.

 

[dad]

The only thing i'm denying is your ability to make a coherent argument.

Add that to denying history and the bible and the spiritual and the actual basis of science models of the past etc etc. ZZzzz

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't agree.
The fact that you can't say true, when the answer is obviously true, seems to indicates what I think to be the case.
I think people use broad terms for convenience - in order to "take a little here, and a little there", and still be in the game.
It's like playing a baseball game, where the touch base is five times the regular size.
I see it, not only in this case, but in other terms, including the use of the term evolution.

It's easy to say something, but when it comes to explaining it, one begins to see that the terms are just used loosely, because "it really doesn't matter as long as it works for the proposed idea"... imv.

Well, I think it's simply a matter of looking at introductory material that is very basic and broad, and complaining that it doesn't explain things in technical detail.

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

Can you clarify something for me? Do you disagree that natural selection happens?

However, I am not really interested in what people say, if they can't explain it. That's like asking me to believe in what others believe, without understanding why they believe it.

Note though, that Evolution 101 is not the only site that says "natural selection acts on variation".
A quick google will reveal that.

We will also see from this source...
* Natural selection acts on the phenotype, the characteristics of the organism which actually interact with the environment...
* Natural selection can act on any heritable phenotypic trait...
* Natural selection acts on an organism's phenotype, or physical characteristics

* Natural selection is here understood to act on embryonic development to change the morphology of the adult body.
* Natural selection acts on individuals...

As with the Evolution 101 site, Wiki is also intended to give general overviews to laypeople, rather than fully detailed, highly technical coverage.

So natural selection acts on almost everything, apparently.

Well, we do see it operating, all the time. One of my early posts to you in this thread was a description of an experiment we did as undergrads that shows how trivially easy it is to observe natural selection in action.

I can certainly understand a few of those expressions, since they indicate an effect on - not what makes it happen, but something else.... like the example I gave of the weather. It produces an effect.

So I can understand the conditions that form natural selection, and what drives it in one direction or other.
It may be, I don't fully understand it, but if it is not simple to explain, then perhaps it's not simple to understand, as some claim.

It is very simple. I think you may just be getting too wrapped up in the way non-technical sources cover the subject and the specific words they use to do so. What's important is that you at least understand what natural selection is and how it works. I mean, it's not like there's going to be a vocabulary test at the end of all this!

In my opinion, Evolution 101 explains things in a very simple way.

Right, so try and not get frustrated because they don't explain things in a very technical way.

I understand how it explains natural selection here, but it also makes statements I don't agree with, and there are valid reasons not to agree. It's not a case of my not wanting to agree.
It's okay to not agree with something. That's fair, isn't it?

Sure. I'm curious though....what specifically on that page don't you agree with? Is it the concept they're explaining, or is it just the way they explain it?

 

[tas8831]

Okay, let's see how this works.
I guess you are the winner. Do you feel full?
Bye bye.

Too bad there isn't a crybaby smilie...