What atheists fail to understand

[Dorothy Mae]

I am not using the word "development" to refer to the origin of life, but specifically in relation to the process of adaptation. The human eye is the result of a long process of adaptation or development. This is not a point of disagreement between Jane and myself, just a different word choice.

It also is a statment of faith. If one thinks about it long enough, one sees that his is rather absurd and does not match real living organisms who do not demonstrate anything close to "developing" vital organs useless for millennia until the right parts are added by chance.

Though I do lean towards the view that chemical evolution can explain abiogenesis, so if Jane sees this as being unrelated to evolutionary theory, I would disagree with her. (It's certainly not biological evolution, but my metaphysical framework is such that it's still related.)

That is your personal belief and you have that right to believe as you choose.

Punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary hypothesis as well, so to the extent to which science has shown that slow development over time is impossible (a claim you would have to back up), it's really irrelevant. And I'm not sure what you mean about new life forms coming into being--are you talking about speciation or reproduction?

Punctuation equilibrium was invented because it is clear that fossil record does not come close to supporting evolution as is commonly believed. It is now not in vogue, I forgot the reason. Now I cannot believe you ask the last question as though reproduction would something that people think brings "new life FORMS" into being. I am sure you studied reproduction and know what is entailed and that the parents REPRODUCE their own life form and not being into existance NEW LIFE FORMS no matter how hard they try.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Why do I suddenly feel the strong urge to say: "Never play chess with pigeons"?

The staggering scientific illiteracy at display here makes any kind of discussion impossible - especially paired with that attitude mistaking poor or NO understanding for wisdom and insight.

There are lots of scientists (including biologists, etc.) who also happen to be Christian. Few if any of them will embrace the ignorance paraded here so proudly. And those who do are probably more "scientist" than scientist.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why do I suddenly feel the strong urge to say: "Never play chess with pigeons"?

The staggering scientific illiteracy at display here makes any kind of discussion impossible - especially paired with that attitude mistaking poor or NO understanding for wisdom and insight.

There are lots of scientists (including biologists, etc.) who also happen to be Christian. Few if any of them will embrace the ignorance paraded here so proudly. And those who do are probably more "scientist" than scientist.

This is your supposedly intellectually sound answer? Again we see one of the three arrows in the arsenal of atheists. No sound argument are presented (they are vunerable to verification.) This one is

1. Those who do not agree with me are ignorant.

That is it. No information, just insulting the opponent. Sign! Always the same no matter which atheist you talk to. Always one of the three. But I just noticed your evaluation of yourself. Hummmmmm. Problem better to move onto other posters. The word "Bane" rhymes with a good word to describe it.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This is your supposedly intellectually sound answer? Again we see one of the three arrows in the arsenal of atheists. No sound argument are presented (they are vunerable to verification.) This one is

1. Those who do not agree with me are ignorant.

That is it. No information, just insulting the opponent. Sign! Always the same no matter which atheist you talk to. Always one of the three. But I just noticed your evaluation of yourself. Hummmmmm. Problem better to move onto other posters. The word "Bane" rhymes with a good word to describe it.

We gave you plenty of sound answers to work with. Your replies demonstrated not only your UTTER, staggering incomprehension, but also your complete unwillingness to even TRY to understand the theory you so vehemently reject. At this point, giving you further attention is just vanity fodder for your confirmation bias. Bye.

 

[Foamhead]

Atheists fail to understand that believers don't become believers because they go to church a lot or listen to very charismatic preachers. They believe because of experiencing highly improbable events that common sense insists can not be attributed to blind coincidence alone.

Apophenia - Wikipedia

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Apophenia - Wikipedia

So christians are all psychotic? Wrong.

 

[Zoness]

So christians are all psychotic? Wrong.

I think it's more like people see what they want to see.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

I think it's more like people see what they want to see.

I see what makes sense.

 

[Foamhead]

So christians are all psychotic? Wrong.

Clearly you don't bother to read much.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Clearly you don't bother to read much.

Clearly you don't either.

Apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. The term was coined by German neurologist and psychiatrist Klaus Conrad (1905-1961). Conrad focused on the finding of abnormal meaning or significance in random experiences by psychotic people.

 

[Silmarien]

It also is a statment of faith. If one thinks about it long enough, one sees that his is rather absurd and does not match real living organisms who do not demonstrate anything close to "developing" vital organs useless for millennia until the right parts are added by chance.

Yes, that would be ridiculous, if that was actually what evolutionary theory has to say about the development of the various organs. As far as I'm aware, the best theories about the eye right now are that they began as light-sensitive cells that served other purposes, such as photosynthesis. The function of organs can change over time, but evolution doesn't mean that organs that served no function magically develop towards some future goal. What you're describing here is precisely the sort of wacky, unsophisticated approach to teleology that evolutionary theory does away with.

Punctuation equilibrium was invented because it is clear that fossil record does not come close to supporting evolution as is commonly believed. It is now not in vogue, I forgot the reason. Now I cannot believe you ask the last question as though reproduction would something that people think brings "new life FORMS" into being. I am sure you studied reproduction and know what is entailed and that the parents REPRODUCE their own life form and not being into existance NEW LIFE FORMS no matter how hard they try.

I asked this question because the way you approach the idea of "new life forms" betrays precisely the type of essentialism that evolutionary theory rules out. Species are to a certain extent a human invention--where do you draw the line between a dog and a wolf? If relatively minor genetic differences exist between parents and children, why is it so surprising that genetic differences can at some point grew large enough to result in a different species? I find the seemingly simpler question of how reproduction can be possible way more baffling than evolution (except insofar as the two are related), as a new individual is a new life form in the way that a new species is not. (This is probably my anti-reductionism and anti-materialism speaking.)

 

[Foamhead]

Clearly you don't either.

Apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. The term was coined by German neurologist and psychiatrist Klaus Conrad (1905-1961). Conrad focused on the finding of abnormal meaning or significance in random experiences by psychotic people.

Apophenia does not mean one is psychotic.

 

[Noxot]

meh things like seizures have been linked to insights and spiritual experiences. so have strokes. some people do suffer from mental disorders related to apophenia. it does not mean that everyone who sees meaning and connections that others find no meaning in are wrong. jesus christ's state of consciousness is absolutely not "standard" according to the modern worlds idea of normal. neither was the buddhas. or carl jung.

even the brains state of wakefulness is low level brain damage. the subjective person is the authority of what they think a thing is and we certainly share an objective reality together. it does not mean objective reality has to be final, ultimate, or total reality.

I personally see it as an aspect of reality which serves many different purposes. but I totally get the ideas about creatures just being creatures. it could certainly be true. it seems pretty convincing. I think that is one of the possible points of it.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Apophenia does not mean one is psychotic.

Noxot covered this topic pretty well. But feel free to elaborate on what exactly is your point by bringing apophenia up?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Apophenia does occur but its not something you can use to disprove whether or not a claim a christian makes about God proving he is real through improbable events occurring at just the right time in their life isn't actually Gods work. I think we know its true when it comes to something like the gamblers fallacy though.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes, that would be ridiculous, if that was actually what evolutionary theory has to say about the development of the various organs. As far as I'm aware, the best theories about the eye right now are that they began as light-sensitive cells that served other purposes, such as photosynthesis. The function of organs can change over time, but evolution doesn't mean that organs that served no function magically develop towards some future goal. What you're describing here is precisely the sort of wacky, unsophisticated approach to teleology that evolutionary theory does away with.

The problem is you have to find real examples of those evolving eyes down through every step that aided in survival. All of them. There are not such creatures so it is just "story" as we used to say in Hawaii. Theory that does not match once living forms. I know the theory developed out of imagination.

What is worse, there are no known genetic alterations in developing embryos that aid in survival into adulthood that do not cause disease if homozygous. If eyes evoluted from spots, then the phenomena of enhancing genetic changes in developing embryos would be extremely common.

I asked this question because the way you approach the idea of "new life forms" betrays precisely the type of essentialism that evolutionary theory rules out. Species are to a certain extent a human invention--where do you draw the line between a dog and a wolf? If relatively minor genetic differences exist between parents and children, why is it so surprising that genetic differences can at some point grew large enough to result in a different species?

Because if there are relatively minor genetic differences between parents and offspring, how can new species then come?

Now the classification of living forms is semantics. It is artificial in a way and so you are right. Nevertheless, science has done so in order to communicate and we cannot simply chuck the nomenclature and think we have made new life forms. Children are like their parents genetically so the possiblity of them not being like their parents genetically, i.e., new life forms is not possible.

I find the seemingly simpler question of how reproduction can be possible way more baffling than evolution (except insofar as the two are related), as a new individual is a new life form in the way that a new species is not. (This is probably my anti-reductionism and anti-materialism speaking.)

I really do not know what to say to that since I dont know of any adult who thinks reproduction is more baffling than evolution. Evolution is the production of unlike from parents (add all the time and chance you want but reproduction does not happen slowly over time.) And we do not call a baby a "new life form" but a reproduction of the parents. A "new " life form means somthing different than the parents. One needs to be clear with the words ones uses.

 

[awitch]

If eyes evoluted from spots, then the phenomena of enhancing genetic changes in developing embryos would be extremely common.
...
One needs to be clear with the words ones uses.

<Giggle>

 

[Dorothy Mae]

<Giggle>

This is why it is tiring to talk to evolutionists. There most impressive argument you have is to giggle, I guess. Shows the level of intellectual information as well as other factors. Time to talk to some adults who are educated in the subject.

 

[awitch]

Time to talk to some adults who are educated in the subject.

I think that is a fantastic idea.

 

[dlamberth]

Evolution is the production of unlike from parents (add all the time and chance you want but reproduction does not happen slowly over time.) And we do not call a baby a "new life form" but a reproduction of the parents. A "new " life form means somthing different than the parents. One needs to be clear with the words ones uses.

With all due respect, I have no idea what your talking about here, because it's not evolution, that's for sure.