An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[durangodawood]

Science is based on the assumption that miracles don't exist
and never happen.

Well so far so good for science.

None of our incredibly useful technical contrivances would function at all if reality wasnt so reliably repeatable.

I mean, try to build something if the modulus of elasticity of your structural material varied from day to day because of 'miracles'.

 

[Ophiolite]

What if I named 500?

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/

I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you were not attempting a flim-flam trick. Gen2memE has dismantled the supposed list quite effectively. Now would you like to actually deal with what I asked for? I'm looking for a citation to a reputable peer reviewed journal in which the serious problem is revealed.

Further, as Gen2memE notes, the scientists declared they were ""skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

So what? I'm skeptical of exactly the same things. This skepticism has two sources:
1. My scientific training tells me to be skeptical of everything.
2. I think there may be other mechanisms at work that we have not yet fully recognised, or quantified. It would take far too long to explain my rationale for this suspicion, but it is sufficent to generate a level of skepticism.

So, I could quite happily sign that document and yet I would remain firmly convinced that evolution from a common ancestor under a strong influence of natural selection was the best available explanation for biodiversity. Your list is worthless.

Now how about that citation?

 

[FormerAtheist]

'Science' and 'the creation of life as we know it' were irrelevant to my decision concerning belief in deities. Skepticism was the pivot on which my decision hinged.

Then your belief system is based on faith or emotions. That is not how mine operates.

Science doesn't take sides on positions of belief. Science concerns itself solely with the natural world, and is methodologically excluded from considering questions of a supernatural nature.

You say that science does not take a position based on beliefs but what about TOE. Has not science taken a position on this or so we are to think? And what is beyond natural ... define natural. What about quantum physics.



See, I don't believe you.

You don't read like someone who is familiar with the philosophical and methodological underpinnings of the sciences;
You don't read like someone who is familiar with basics of evolutionary biology;
You don't read like someone who is familiar with the history of the debate over evolutionary biology;
You do read like someone who is regurgitating basic creationist talking points, but doesn't actually understand them.

In short, I think you're either not being honest in how you represent yourself, or have overestimated your knowledge of the topic to such a degree that you've essentially deluded yourself about your expertise - see the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I don't have a problem with any of that except to say lets just see how the debates unfold. It is still very young in this debate. More will be seen and then everyone can form these opinions. Either way its ok with me.

 

[Gene2memE]

'Science' and 'the creation of life as we know it' were irrelevant to my decision concerning belief in deities. Skepticism was the pivot on which my decision hinged.

Then your belief system is based on faith or emotions. That is not how mine operates.

Nope. First of all, atheism isn't a belief system. It's a response to a positive claim made by theists that some god exists. I'd also note that I suspect that someone who describes themselves as a 'former atheist' should know this.

Personally, my lack of belief was (and is) based on an absence of positive support for the claims of theism following skeptical and critical consideration. After ~14 years of Christian education, I examined my religious beliefs and found that they weren't based on anything evidence I considered reasonable.It took several years, transitioning through deism and panentheism, but eventually I winnowed down my beliefs to atheism (specifically, 'weak' or 'agnostic' atheism).

Emotional considerations didn't really play a part in that process. Emotionally, I still consider theism a more attractive and comforting belief stance (that whole eternal life/eternal punishment thing). Being a theist would certainly help relationships with my family, and some friends as well.

There's also no faith in my absence of belief. Not accepting claims made by someone else really doesn't require faith.It just requires me to make the counter claim "I don't believe you".

' Science doesn't take sides on positions of belief. Science concerns itself solely with the natural world, and is methodologically excluded from considering questions of a supernatural nature.

You say that science does not take a position based on beliefs but what about TOE. Has not science taken a position on this or so we are to think? And what is beyond natural ... define natural. What about quantum physics.

Nope, the science of the Theory of Evolution is not a position of belief and it is completely indifferent to positions of religious belief. The ToE is an explanation for the diversity and complexity of living things based on the observed evidence from the world around us.

What is believed by religious individuals and written in various holy books doesn't have any bearing on that. The evidence doesn't give a fig.

Similarly, quantum physics is based on observations, and the mathematics derived from those observations.

As for a definition of natural, I'll take 'Things that exist within physical reality' for $200 thanks Alex.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you were not attempting a flim-flam trick. Gen2memE has dismantled the supposed list quite effectively. Now would you like to actually deal with what I asked for? I'm looking for a citation to a reputable peer reviewed journal in which the serious problem is revealed.

Further, as Gen2memE notes, the scientists declared they were ""skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

So what? I'm skeptical of exactly the same things. This skepticism has two sources:
1. My scientific training tells me to be skeptical of everything.
2. I think there may be other mechanisms at work that we have not yet fully recognised, or quantified. It would take far too long to explain my rationale for this suspicion, but it is sufficent to generate a level of skepticism.

So, I could quite happily sign that document and yet I would remain firmly convinced that evolution from a common ancestor under a strong influence of natural selection was the best available explanation for biodiversity. Your list is worthless.

Now how about that citation?

Ok you have waited long enough for your citation.
But it is interesting that you think it does not exist.
Numerous papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory trees based on evidence from molecular genetics. A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution notes that “evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.”13 Likewise, a 2012 paper in Biological Reviews acknowledges that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception.”14 Echoing these views, a January 2009 cover story and review article in New Scientist observed that today the tree-of-life project “lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” As the article explains, “Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded,” because the evidence suggests that “the evolution of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like.” The New Scientist article cited a study by Michael Syvanen, a biologist at the University of California at Davis, who studied the relationships among several phyla that first arose in the Cambrian.15 Syvanen’s study compared two thousand genes in six animals spanning phyla as diverse as chordates, echinoderms, arthropods, and nematodes. His analysis yielded no consistent tree-like pattern. As the New Scientist reported, “In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.” Syvanen himself summarized the results in the bluntest of terms: “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree anymore, it’s a different topology [pattern of history] entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?”16

13. Degnan and Rosenberg, “Gene Tree Discordance, Phylogenetic Inference and the Multispecies Coalescent,” 332. 14. Dávalos et al., “Understanding Phylogenetic Incongruence: Lessons from Phyllostomid Bats,” 993. 15. Syvanen and Ducore, “Whole Genome Comparisons Reveals a Possible Chimeric Origin for a Major Metazoan Assemblage,” 261–75. 16. Quoted in Lawton, “Why Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life,”

 

[FormerAtheist]

I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you were not attempting a flim-flam trick. Gen2memE has dismantled the supposed list quite effectively. Now would you like to actually deal with what I asked for? I'm looking for a citation to a reputable peer reviewed journal in which the serious problem is revealed.

Further, as Gen2memE notes, the scientists declared they were ""skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

So what? I'm skeptical of exactly the same things. This skepticism has two sources:
1. My scientific training tells me to be skeptical of everything.
2. I think there may be other mechanisms at work that we have not yet fully recognised, or quantified. It would take far too long to explain my rationale for this suspicion, but it is sufficent to generate a level of skepticism.

So, I could quite happily sign that document and yet I would remain firmly convinced that evolution from a common ancestor under a strong influence of natural selection was the best available explanation for biodiversity. Your list is worthless.

Now how about that citation?

If you need more references I can bore you to death with repeated references after repeated references. I have the notes on a tablet and only have to send them to my computer. I travel a lot and am compiling this very type of thing. So the truth is that I have tons of this stuff but it would be boring to most people so I do not put it out first. I wait.

But believe me when I say this. Nothing I say is not backed up by hundreds of data points of info that I have and continue to collect.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ok you have waited long enough for your citation.
But it is interesting that you think it does not exist.
Numerous papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory trees based on evidence from molecular genetics. A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution notes that “evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.”13 Likewise, a 2012 paper in Biological Reviews acknowledges that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception.”14 Echoing these views, a January 2009 cover story and review article in New Scientist observed that today the tree-of-life project “lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” As the article explains, “Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded,” because the evidence suggests that “the evolution of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like.” The New Scientist article cited a study by Michael Syvanen, a biologist at the University of California at Davis, who studied the relationships among several phyla that first arose in the Cambrian.15 Syvanen’s study compared two thousand genes in six animals spanning phyla as diverse as chordates, echinoderms, arthropods, and nematodes. His analysis yielded no consistent tree-like pattern. As the New Scientist reported, “In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.” Syvanen himself summarized the results in the bluntest of terms: “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree anymore, it’s a different topology [pattern of history] entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?”16

13. Degnan and Rosenberg, “Gene Tree Discordance, Phylogenetic Inference and the Multispecies Coalescent,” 332. 14. Dávalos et al., “Understanding Phylogenetic Incongruence: Lessons from Phyllostomid Bats,” 993. 15. Syvanen and Ducore, “Whole Genome Comparisons Reveals a Possible Chimeric Origin for a Major Metazoan Assemblage,” 261–75. 16. Quoted in Lawton, “Why Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life,”

And no fundamental divergence from Darwinian theory in this. Each of those researchers accepts evolution, they are just debating and refining the details. No news here. Move along.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Nope. First of all, atheism isn't a belief system. It's a response to a positive claim made by theists that some god exists. I'd also note that I suspect that someone who describes themselves as a 'former atheist' should know this.

Personally, my lack of belief was (and is) based on an absence of positive support for the claims of theism following skeptical and critical consideration. After ~14 years of Christian education, I examined my religious beliefs and found that they weren't based on anything evidence I considered reasonable.It took several years, transitioning through deism and panentheism, but eventually I winnowed down my beliefs to atheism (specifically, 'weak' or 'agnostic' atheism).

Emotional considerations didn't really play a part in that process. Emotionally, I still consider theism a more attractive and comforting belief stance (that whole eternal life/eternal punishment thing). Being a theist would certainly help relationships with my family, and some friends as well.

There's also no faith in my absence of belief. Not accepting claims made by someone else really doesn't require faith.It just requires me to make the counter claim "I don't believe you".



Nope, the science of the Theory of Evolution is not a position of belief and it is completely indifferent to positions of religious belief. The ToE is an explanation for the diversity and complexity of living things based on the observed evidence from the world around us.

What is believed by religious individuals and written in various holy books doesn't have any bearing on that. The evidence doesn't give a fig.

Similarly, quantum physics is based on observations, and the mathematics derived from those observations.

As for a definition of natural, I'll take 'Things that exist within physical reality' for $200 thanks Alex.

I will admit defeat on what you have said here. I clearly was wrong I misjudged you. I was wrong on multiple fronts clearly. You are not like the majority and that is something of a badge of honor for you in this day and age. I would congratulate you on that. You are one that thinks differently and we don't seem to see that much any more. I think that is because of the Ignore of our education system by I don't want to digress.

But just because you don't have faith in a system and instead are willing to challenge the system does not mean that the system is correct. There is another problem or possibility. In that you have not looked deep enough. You have not seriously challenged your beliefs. You have not tested them with science or with the scientific mind that you obviously posses.

There is a flaw in what I told you. And I can hear you right now. You are saying then what if you haven't looked deep enough and all the arguments that you are putting at me ... well they can be put right back at you.

And you are correct. We should challenge ourselves. We should be willing to put our beliefs up to the test. They are some part of what defines us because they are how we interpret the universe and the mechanics of it. Of course I question and I am willing do it. Of course I will challenge myself and I am willing to do it I am here right now. I will go up against Scientists and you will see it right here on this forum. There will be actual scientists that will respond.

This is nothing new and nothing to be bothered about. This is normal ... there should be debate in the scientific community and everyone that cares about it ... which should be all of us. These are important things .. the most important. We should ask questions and by the way no one has the high road. Information does not need credentials, truth doesn't need anything but itself. Logic and common sense is something that's being programmed out. Use logic. Use science. Use match.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Of the now ~880 names on the list, abut a third are not actually scientists.

Of the remaining names on the list, only about 2% are practicing biologists - that is, employed in either a practical, research or teaching position - and less than 25 names on the list are PhD biologists.

Of these, better than a dozen earned their doctorates in universities that are Evangelical Christian diploma mills - like Oral Roberts, Leadership University, Liberty University or Cedarville University - which require faculty to ascribe to positions of faith, some including young earth creationism.

So that leaves about 10 or so PhD biologists on the list. A little less than 0.1% of all PhD biologists in the US.

However, this list only states that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This does not mean they have "serious problems" with The Theory of Evolutionary Biology. Rather that they are skeptical of claims - a position that does not entail automatic rejection. Also, getting one's name off the list appears to be a near impossibility. One scientist was horrified to find his name on the list and spent ~7 years trying to get it scrubbed.

Ok ok ... fine all nice points but do you remember the actual question?

Could I name one?

You have done everything you can to belittle this down. But even you have to acknowledge that there must be a dozen lol.

What if there are hundreds lol.

Just saying ... all of that sounded reasonable .. ish ...

actually not

 

[Gene2memE]

You are one that thinks differently and we don't seem to see that much any more. I think that is because of the Ignore of our education system by I don't want to digress.

I think you do me too much credit, and other atheists here too little.

Also, my opinion is precisely the opposite to yours. The reason I "think differently" is due to my education. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Jesuits and lay people that educated me thoroughly through middle and high school, as well as my professors during my university education. Both group equipped me with the skills to analyse information critically.

On a personal note, I've worked as a teacher (it's hard, I didn't last that long). During that time I worked to pass on that same skeptical approach to my students (not as easy as it sounds, particularly in secondary education).

This is nothing new and nothing to be bothered about. This is normal ... there should be debate in the scientific community and everyone that cares about it ... which should be all of us. These are important things .. the most important. We should ask questions and by the way no one has the high road. Information does not need credentials, truth doesn't need anything but itself. Logic and common sense is something that's being programmed out. Use logic. Use science. Use match.

This is completely irrelevant to positions of belief concerning theism/atheism. You can be a theist and accept the Theory of Evolution. You can be an atheist and reject the Theory of Evolution. Ergo, the validity of the theory has no actual bearing on the question of god beliefs.

The ToE rises/falls on an evidentiary basis. However, that basis is so thorough and supported by concordant lines of evidence, that rejection of the ToE would be positively paradigm changing. Even if it were to be overturned, hat would replace the ToE would be another naturalistic explanation of the diversity and complexity of life. The methodologies of science do not allow a non-naturalistic explanation.

Frankly, all of what you've raised as objections to the ToE are recycled creationist talking points, picked from the pages of AiG and the Discovery Institute.

What evidential basis beyond the rattling of creationists do you have to reject the ToE? And, what do you propose as a replacement?

 

[FormerAtheist]

And no fundamental divergence from Darwinian theory in this. Each of those researchers accepts evolution, they are just debating and refining the details. No news here. Move along.

Each researcher accepts that there is no God. I will accept that to some extent. Actually many of them had doubts long before and many more are having doubts now. Many of them like me are converting from Atheism. We don't know what to do. We don't necessarily want to go to religion we don't even like the idea of God but we know the science and we are not afraid and will not back down. So now what? Well that is something different.

But as far as the claim you made that everyone accepts evolution its a bit more complex then you think when it comes down to the people that are actually doing the work.

They do not all accept what you think of as evolution. They have many debates about this or publish peer reviewed papers where they will call into question different problems. Like the Molecular clock connecting to the Deep Divergence or the probability of the math behind a new protein fold. And then they begin to question the entire theory itself. They begin to question something key like common descent.

What if I told you that some scientists are now questioning that?
Do ... wait ... just stop for a second ... process that.... this is big.

If we do not have common descent or universal decent its over in my mind and in others. But at the very least without common decent we have a serious problem with the fundamentals of the operating system in the first place.

Darwin would have said the same.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I think you do me too much credit, and other atheists here to little.

Also, my opinion is precisely the opposite to yours. The reason I "think differently" is due to my education. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Jesuits and lay people that educated me thoroughly through middle and high school, as well as my professors during my university education. Both group equipped me with the skills to analyse information critically.

On a personal note, I've worked as a teacher (it's hard, I didn't last that long). During that time I worked to pass on that same skeptical approach to my students (not as easy as it sounds, particularly in secondary education).



This is completely irrelevant to positions of belief concerning theism/atheism. You can be a theist and accept the Theory of Evolution. You can be an atheist and reject the Theory of Evolution. Ergo, the validity of the theory has no actual bearing on the question of god beliefs.

The ToE rises/falls on an evidentiary basis. However, that basis is so thorough and supported by concordant lines of evidence, that rejection of the ToE would be positively paradigm changing. Even if it were to be overturned, hat would replace the ToE would be another naturalistic explanation of the diversity and complexity of life. The methodologies of science do not allow a non-naturalistic explanation.

Frankly, all of what you've raised as objections to the ToE are recycled creationist talking points, picked from the pages of AiG and the Discovery Institute.

What evidential basis beyond the rattling of creationists do you have to reject the ToE? And, what do you propose as a replacement?

Honestly your post was mind blowing. I wouldn't say that often or lightly but damn what you are saying illustrates the problems with the thinking of our generation in so many facets. Damn I have to do this one ... sorry was busy doing something else I will break this one down ... you bring up too many great points its awesome.

 

[FormerAtheist]

My conclusion might have been basic but I was at Church yesterday for a creation seminar and the Big Bang was explained as nonsense but that we believe it because it's a logical conclusion when you reverse entropy for long enough.

well for me the problem comes down to this when it comes down to ... an intelligent outside agent ... God.
1. Creation of the Universe
2. Creation of life from non-life.
3. Transformation of everything from the beginning to now in current form or existence.

Well 2 and 3 are easy to work with because we can easily look at different scientific methods to analyze them. But number one is awesome and interesting and yet not my field of interest or whatever and I have less to say as a result. I don't know how to process that information. There is a part of me that thinks it can't be done. We can not know this.
There is a part of me that says we are trapped within the confines of the filter that we are trying to look beyond.
I am working on a project with some people and I delegated a few to look at that particular issue because of my limitations.
I don't know why but what you said made me think of that.

 

[FormerAtheist]

"History" is the documentation of the past in writing.

Please point to this alternate method you have in mind.
I'll get you started:
historical scientific method - Google Search

Ok wait what?
Uh everything
Like archeology ... I mean
nah wait what/?
I don't hahaha your messing I get it ... duh I was punked lol

 

[FormerAtheist]

Ok let me just say that many of the ideas you bring forth in your entire post are amazing because they bring the argument together in a way that crystalizes everything. And so I want to go over the main points in your amazing arguments:

The ToE rises/falls on an evidentiary basis. However, that basis is so thorough and supported by concordant lines of evidence, that rejection of the ToE would be positively paradigm changing.

Exactly and that is what is so mind blowing about this whole thing is that is exactly what is happening. We are seeing exactly what would be predicted if you had a major change in theory when the main body of science and education is based on something that is false. They have to be careful to some extent but they are in the end scientists and curios humans. They will rebel. They will begin to demand for something that lines up with the data. In the end the evidence kind of needs to line up with the data right?

Even if it were to be overturned, hat would replace the ToE would be another naturalistic explanation of the diversity and complexity of life. The methodologies of science do not allow a non-naturalistic explanation.

Doesn't that limit science to some extent? I'm not saying that's bad entirely but it is a thing for sure. You are saying that anything outside of "natural" is off limits but what is natural? What about the ability to go forward in time? What about the ability to know what something else is doing on the otherside of the universe? Isn't that a bit like Omni what ever? What if these things are in quantum physics and therefore in the fabric of the universe. What if your limiting and downgrading the universe and your own existence. What if you by the limits you are putting on you are making this far less deeper then it actually is and therefore you wouldn't be able to see the depth.

Just some questions.

Frankly, all of what you've raised as objections to the ToE are recycled creationist talking points, picked from the pages of AiG and the Discovery Institute.

Um wait what .. recycled what? I can post from scientists. I can give you the data. I think I probably already did lol. But lets just stop for a second ... how dare you denigrate Christians.

Who are you?
Who am I?
We are nothing compared to these people ... they are amazing and their great works speak for themselves. And you will denigrate actual scientists because they do not hold your views? I don't agree with that. They are mountains. And quite frankly you denigrate all scientists when you do this and all free will to think differently then your privileged view.

Enough of people denigrating Isaac newton for being a Christian ... so what he was a Christian or better yet in your face he was a Christian. Like the best ever and was a Christian or Leonardo duh the best and brightest and you can't take that back ... I never did when I was an atheist. I let the Christians have their due respect as they should.

What evidential basis beyond the rattling of creationists do you have to reject the ToE? And, what do you propose as a replacement?

The rattling of creationists? Damn man seriously? Do you know how offensive that is to me? I am not a Christian and that is sooo offensive. Like damn that is seriously offensive to me ... but whatever I don't want to get all snow flake on you so fine you think these foolish creationists blah blah ... hahaha so offensive ... lets get back to your point>

Replace
Ok with respect to T.... nah I'm [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed ... I will do this later if someone else brings it up ... f'n [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed

I spent enough on this post

 

[Gene2memE]

Yeah, I now believe you're a atheist like I believe Bill Clinton is a faithful husband...

If you're going to try to impersonate an atheist, at least try to make it believable.

Exactly and that is what is so mind blowing about this whole thing is that is exactly what is happening. We are seeing exactly what would be predicted if you had a major change in theory when the main body of science and education is based on something that is false.

No, we're not. Evolutionary biology is no more going through a major change than earth sciences are. Those sorts of paradigm altering debates aren't quiet, and they'd be playing out in the pages of Nature, PLoS 1, the Journal of Evolutionary Biology and Cell. I read those, I'd know about it.

Doesn't that limit science to some extent?

Yes, but its a hard and self-imposed limit. Otherwise one of the key criteria of the scientific method goes right out the window.

You are saying that anything outside of "natural" is off limits but what is natural?

By natural, I'd say 'demonstrated to occur in physical reality'.

What about the ability to go forward in time?

What about it? You and I are doing that right now.

Science can make predictions, if that's what you mean about going forward in time. The better (ie more accurate and useful) the predictions, the stronger the theory.

What about the ability to know what something else is doing on the otherside of the universe?

What about the teapot in orbit between Mercury and Venus?

Science is an inductive methodology. It can only test what is observed.

Isn't that a bit like Omni what ever?

Not in the slightest.

What if these things are in quantum physics and therefore in the fabric of the universe.

The they could be reliably and repeatedly demonstrated. The time to believe a claim is WHEN its demonstrated, not before it is.

What if your limiting and downgrading the universe and your own existence. What if you by the limits you are putting on you are making this far less deeper then it actually is and therefore you wouldn't be able to see the depth.

What if, by not believing contradictory things and engaging in magical thinking, I'm doing precisely the opposite.

Just some questions.

JAQing off.

Um wait what .. recycled what? I can post from scientists. I can give you the data. I think I probably already did lol. But lets just stop for a second ... how dare you denigrate Christians.

I'm not denigrating anyone and Christians, even here, are not immune to criticism, nor should they be.

We are nothing compared to these people ... they are amazing and their great works speak for themselves. And you will denigrate actual scientists because they do not hold your views? I don't agree with that. They are mountains. And quite frankly you denigrate all scientists when you do this and all free will to think differently then your privileged view.

Again, I'm not denigrating anyone. And I'm a peer of these people, having once been a publishing academic.

Enough of people denigrating Isaac newton for being a Christian ... so what he was a Christian or better yet in your face he was a Christian. Like the best ever and was a Christian or Leonardo duh the best and brightest and you can't take that back ... I never did when I was an atheist. I let the Christians have their due respect as they should.

Isacc Newton (and da Vinci) were surpassingly intelligent. But, Newton also held a bunch of beliefs that ranged from the merely iffy to psudeo scientific and downright delusional. Being highly intelligent doesn't mean you're incapable of holding incorrect beliefs, nor that you are immune from falacious reasoning.

The rattling of creationists? Damn man seriously? Do you know how offensive that is to me? I am not a Christian and that is sooo offensive. Like damn that is seriously offensive to me ... but whatever I don't want to get all snow flake on you so fine you think these foolish creationists blah blah ... hahaha so offensive ... lets get back to your point>

I don't care a tinker's curse for your offense. When all you're doing is recycling IDiot/Creationist talking points, I'll call you out on it. I notice that you didn't address my question though.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ok wait what?
Uh everything
Like archeology ... I mean
nah wait what/?
I don't hahaha your messing I get it ... duh I was punked lol

Please point to this alternate method you brought up.
I'll get you started:
historical scientific method - Google Search

 

[FormerAtheist]

Yeah, I now believe you're a atheist like I believe Bill Clinton is a faithful husband...

Um former Atheist .. lets not get confused. I am not on your side anymore. Not even close and I don't want you to be confused on that in the slightest.

If you're going to try to impersonate an atheist, at least try to make it believable.

I have better things to do then impersonate an Atheist. Not remotely interested so I will pass.



No, we're not. Evolutionary biology is no more going through a major change than earth sciences are. Those sorts of paradigm altering debates aren't quiet, and they'd be playing out in the pages of Nature, PLoS 1, the Journal of Evolutionary Biology and Cell. I read those, I'd know about it.

well apparently you havnt been checking the literature lol bro.


By natural, I'd say 'demonstrated to occur in physical reality'.

Except those things that can not be demonstrated in physical reality like dark matter or quantum physics? I mean maybe you can make some arguments I could possible see some of that but how does that square with the "natural" universe whatever that means in a universe with over 20 dimensions and time travel and entangled objects and quantum tunneling. . I mean come on.


Science can make predictions, if that's what you mean about going forward in time. The better (ie more accurate and useful) the predictions, the stronger the theory.

Just talking about Quantum Physics.

Science is an inductive methodology. It can only test what is observed.

This actually would not work for all fields of science each field has a different way of research.


What if, by not believing contradictory things and engaging in magical thinking, I'm doing precisely the opposite.

You are precisely saying that an opposing scientific vies is magic. Do you see the problem with that? Because you don't agree does not make the other side the idiots.
They can only be wrong or right. The same for you.
You need to look deeper at the evidence and wonder why there are so many conflicts. Why are there so many scientists talking about it in peer reviewed papers.

Do you doubt me?
Do you doubt the Science?
Maybe you think I don't have the links lol.

Lets go ... its not over by a long shot ... lets just keep going.

SCIENCE IS A JOURNEY.

THE POINT OF DESTINATION IS TO BE TRUTH.




JAQing off.



I'm not denigrating anyone and Christians, even here, are not immune to criticism, nor should they be.



Again, I'm not denigrating anyone. And I'm a peer of these people, having once been a publishing academic.



Isacc Newton (and da Vinci) were surpassingly intelligent. But, Newton also held a bunch of beliefs that ranged from the merely iffy to psudeo scientific and downright delusional. Being highly intelligent doesn't mean you're incapable of holding incorrect beliefs, nor that you are immune from falacious reasoning.



I don't care a tinker's curse for your offense. When all you're doing is recycling IDiot/Creationist talking points, I'll call you out on it. I notice that you didn't address my question though.

 

[Gene2memE]

well apparently you havnt been checking the literature lol bro.

I have "bro". The last time Nature seriously published anything about major changes in the evolutionary paradigm was a pro/con discussion paper in 2014. Even then, all they were arguing for was an extension to the synthesis, adding elements from developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science.

With the exception of the last one of those, the modern synthesis already included that.

Except those things that can not be demonstrated in physical reality like dark matter or quantum physics?

If you think those can't be demonstrated in physical reality, I suggest you go back to the books.

 

[Skreeper]

Yeah, I now believe you're a atheist like I believe Bill Clinton is a faithful husband...

Um former Atheist .. lets not get confused. I am not on your side anymore. Not even close and I don't want you to be confused on that in the slightest.

If you're going to try to impersonate an atheist, at least try to make it believable.

I have better things to do then impersonate an Atheist. Not remotely interested so I will pass.



No, we're not. Evolutionary biology is no more going through a major change than earth sciences are. Those sorts of paradigm altering debates aren't quiet, and they'd be playing out in the pages of Nature, PLoS 1, the Journal of Evolutionary Biology and Cell. I read those, I'd know about it.

well apparently you havnt been checking the literature lol bro.


By natural, I'd say 'demonstrated to occur in physical reality'.

Except those things that can not be demonstrated in physical reality like dark matter or quantum physics? I mean maybe you can make some arguments I could possible see some of that but how does that square with the "natural" universe whatever that means in a universe with over 20 dimensions and time travel and entangled objects and quantum tunneling. . I mean come on.


Science can make predictions, if that's what you mean about going forward in time. The better (ie more accurate and useful) the predictions, the stronger the theory.

Just talking about Quantum Physics.

Science is an inductive methodology. It can only test what is observed.

This actually would not work for all fields of science each field has a different way of research.


What if, by not believing contradictory things and engaging in magical thinking, I'm doing precisely the opposite.

You are precisely saying that an opposing scientific vies is magic. Do you see the problem with that? Because you don't agree does not make the other side the idiots.
They can only be wrong or right. The same for you.
You need to look deeper at the evidence and wonder why there are so many conflicts. Why are there so many scientists talking about it in peer reviewed papers.

Do you doubt me?
Do you doubt the Science?
Maybe you think I don't have the links lol.

Lets go ... its not over by a long shot ... lets just keep going.

SCIENCE IS A JOURNEY.

THE POINT OF DESTINATION IS TO BE TRUTH.




JAQing off.



I'm not denigrating anyone and Christians, even here, are not immune to criticism, nor should they be.



Again, I'm not denigrating anyone. And I'm a peer of these people, having once been a publishing academic.



Isacc Newton (and da Vinci) were surpassingly intelligent. But, Newton also held a bunch of beliefs that ranged from the merely iffy to psudeo scientific and downright delusional. Being highly intelligent doesn't mean you're incapable of holding incorrect beliefs, nor that you are immune from falacious reasoning.



I don't care a tinker's curse for your offense. When all you're doing is recycling IDiot/Creationist talking points, I'll call you out on it. I notice that you didn't address my question though.

It is really sad seeing a former atheist. It's like you decided to throw out critical thinking and scepticism and replaced it with logical fallacies and wishful thinking.