XenoFish Posted April 30, 2019 #2651 Share Posted April 30, 2019 Is there such a thing as 'just living'? Without any ties to any ideology. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted April 30, 2019 #2652 Share Posted April 30, 2019 7 hours ago, DieChecker said: Ha! How can a invisible creature be pink? Its a metaphysical unicorn obviously. Apparently using the word metaphysical means that you can do anything. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted April 30, 2019 #2653 Share Posted April 30, 2019 19 hours ago, Khanivore said: No is the burden of proof not on you as the global minority who does believe in a God, most of humanity does in some form. So the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof is on the people who makes a claim. It is completely irrelevant how many people have a belief, what matters is if the belief is true or not. 19 hours ago, Khanivore said: I bet you believe in concepts that have no proof but you'll accept them purely on testimony not science or observations. There is also such a thing as plausibility. If you claim you have a pet dog I would probably accept it as that is a very common thing to have. If on the other hand you claim to have a pet dragon I would have to see some solid evidence before I believed you. If you claim to have a cold it is perfectly plausible. If you claim to have been dead and then come back to life it would require a lot more to convince me. 19 hours ago, Khanivore said: If you believe in infinite universes, that means there are infinite possibilities, so there is a possibility that unicorns and leprechauns exist some where. So do you adhere to these modern unsubstantiated theories? I don't really have any position on the existence of infinite universes. They might exist, but then again they might not. The thing is that I am prefectly willing to utter those dreaded 3 words that so many theist fear to utter: "I don't know" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 30, 2019 #2654 Share Posted April 30, 2019 5 hours ago, XenoFish said: Is there such a thing as 'just living'? Without any ties to any ideology. Coma victim? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted April 30, 2019 #2655 Share Posted April 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, DieChecker said: Coma victim? I need to quit asking questions. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted April 30, 2019 #2656 Share Posted April 30, 2019 5 hours ago, XenoFish said: Is there such a thing as 'just living'? Without any ties to any ideology. What would you define an ideology as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted April 30, 2019 #2657 Share Posted April 30, 2019 Just now, danydandan said: What would you define an ideology as? A set of beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted April 30, 2019 #2658 Share Posted April 30, 2019 16 minutes ago, XenoFish said: A set of beliefs. Then no, I reckon it's impossible to live ideology free. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horta Posted May 1, 2019 #2659 Share Posted May 1, 2019 On 4/30/2019 at 2:17 AM, Khanivore said: What do you consider to be reasonable standard of knowledge? The theory of evolution... versus the claim that each individual species was created fully formed. That would be one good example of "reasonable standard of knowledge" putting paid to religious mythology. There are lots of others re this god, enough to conclude it is mythology, like fairies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted May 1, 2019 #2660 Share Posted May 1, 2019 9 minutes ago, Horta said: The theory of evolution... versus the claim that each individual species was created fully formed. Butterflies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horta Posted May 2, 2019 #2661 Share Posted May 2, 2019 3 hours ago, Will Due said: Butterflies? Ah, of course, how could I forget the butterflies lol. So all species evolved from a common ancestor except for butterflies...which were just magically generated into existence fully formed, by god. Thanks for highlighting the type of "science" that atheism is incompatible with Will (ie. "creation science"). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted May 2, 2019 #2662 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Horta said: Ah, of course, how could I forget the butterflies lol. So all species evolved from a common ancestor except for butterflies...which were just magically generated into existence fully formed, by god. Thanks for highlighting the type of "science" that atheism is incompatible with Will (ie. "creation science"). No. You didn't get it. You said that the theory of evolution is the "reasonable standard of knowledge" right? You said "The theory of evolution... versus the claim that each individual species was created fully formed." Butterflies emerge from their cocoons "fully formed" do they not? Where's the missing link between a caterpillar and a butterfly? Edited May 2, 2019 by Will Due Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted May 2, 2019 #2663 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Will Due said: No. You didn't get it. You said that the theory of evolution is the "reasonable standard of knowledge" right? You said "The theory of evolution... versus the claim that each individual species was created fully formed." Butterflies emerge from their cocoons "fully formed" do they not? Where's the missing link between a caterpillar and a butterfly? Good analogy for evolutionary missing links Obviously the simple answer is the chrysalis. But the caterpillar doesn't just change into a butterfly. It metamorphoses slowly. Changing very, very slightly every day, such that the difference between any 2 or 3 days is imperceptible, and yet each day it forms the missing link between the day before and the day after. Although I suppose you could argue that half way through the metamorphosis it become the missing link between the caterpillar and the butterfly? btw what's the missing link between an impregnated egg and a baby? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted May 2, 2019 #2664 Share Posted May 2, 2019 8 minutes ago, Essan said: Good analogy for evolutionary missing links Obviously the simple answer is the chrysalis. But the caterpillar doesn't just change into a butterfly. It metamorphoses slowly. Changing very, very slightly every day, such that the difference between any 2 or 3 days is imperceptible, and yet each day it forms the missing link between the day before and the day after. Although I suppose you could argue that half way through the metamorphosis it become the missing link between the caterpillar and the butterfly? btw what's the missing link between an impregnated egg and a baby? In the evolution of certain things (not necessarily biological) there are no missing links. They just occur "suddenly". Which is still a metamorphosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted May 2, 2019 #2665 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Essan said: Good analogy for evolutionary missing links Obviously the simple answer is the chrysalis. But the caterpillar doesn't just change into a butterfly. It metamorphoses slowly. Changing very, very slightly every day, such that the difference between any 2 or 3 days is imperceptible, and yet each day it forms the missing link between the day before and the day after. Although I suppose you could argue that half way through the metamorphosis it become the missing link between the caterpillar and the butterfly? btw what's the missing link between an impregnated egg and a baby? Let's address this further. What goes on during pregnancy does not constitute a "missing link". The fetus is not a species "inbetween". In biological evolution, the evidence is that between the species of man, there are no missing links. Then what this suggests is that during the pregnancy of a woman of one human species, a new human species appeared suddenly via the metamorphosis that occurred in the womb. Without a missing link. Thus the new human emerged "fully formed" and this happened several times. What on earth caused that? Edited May 2, 2019 by Will Due Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted May 2, 2019 #2666 Share Posted May 2, 2019 5 hours ago, Will Due said: Let's address this further. What goes on during pregnancy does not constitute a "missing link". The fetus is not a species "inbetween". In biological evolution, the evidence is that between the species of man, there are no missing links. Then what this suggests is that during the pregnancy of a woman of one human species, a new human species appeared suddenly via the metamorphosis that occurred in the womb. Without a missing link. Thus the new human emerged "fully formed" and this happened several times. What on earth caused that? That's not how it happens. You clearly don't understand evolution or biological science. Which seems to be a common factor amongst those who refute evolution Between one species and another there may be a hundred thousand generations, Each is the missing link. You are the missing link between Homo Habilis and a future species of homonid that may exist in a million years time. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted May 2, 2019 #2667 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Essan said: That's not how it happens. You clearly don't understand evolution or biological science. Which seems to be a common factor amongst those who refute evolution Between one species and another there may be a hundred thousand generations, Each is the missing link. You are the missing link between Homo Habilis and a future species of homonid that may exist in a million years time. I'm not refuting evolution. I'm reinforcing it. Science has not found missing links (and never will) between the progressing species of man. This is true because science is in its infancy and there is much still to discover. Evolution is not accidental. One species evolves from another suddenly. That's what the evidence shows. You are not a missing link. But you can link yourself to the thing that caused evolution to unfold. All according to plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted May 2, 2019 #2668 Share Posted May 2, 2019 26 minutes ago, Will Due said: Evolution is not accidental. One species evolves from another suddenly. That's what the evidence shows. Not it's doesn't. I'm no expert, but I know evolution is a slow burner. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquila King Posted May 2, 2019 #2669 Share Posted May 2, 2019 29 minutes ago, Will Due said: Science has not found missing links (and never will) between the progressing species of man. The whole point of Darwin's Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is that every living creature is just another link in a never ending chain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted May 2, 2019 #2670 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Whenever the UB enters a discussion it's time to pack it up and go home. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted May 2, 2019 #2671 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Plus you'd figure there would be some rebuttal from the OP of this thread, nadda. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted May 2, 2019 #2672 Share Posted May 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, danydandan said: Not it's doesn't. I'm no expert, but I know evolution is a slow burner. 2 minutes ago, Aquila King said: The whole point of Darwin's Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is that every living creature is just another link in a never ending chain... Yes I know. Darwin's theory is just that. A theory. But his theory requires missing links between species. I'm no expert too, but my understanding is that missing links between the progressing species of man have not been found. That's evidence isn't it? Evidence that species evolve without progressive links between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Nuclear Wessel Posted May 2, 2019 #2673 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) Quote "I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. " Quote But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. I don't think atheism is about a right to make a final statement about something he/she does not know about. Atheism is just a simple lack of a belief in god/gods. Simple. Seems like this physicist likes strawman arguments. Edited May 2, 2019 by Nuclear Wessel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquila King Posted May 2, 2019 #2674 Share Posted May 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Will Due said: Yes I know. Darwin's theory is just that. A theory. A theory is different than a hypothesis. A theory is established at the end of the scientific method, after you test the hypothesis and then formulate a conclusion. Whereas a hypothesis is formed near the beginning of the scientific method, and needs to be tested. In other words, there's no such thing as "just a theory." To say that is to insinuate that it's merely a hypothesis or a guess with little to no real solid evidence either way. 8 minutes ago, Will Due said: But his theory requires missing links between species. I'm no expert too, but my understanding is that missing links between the progressing species of man have not been found. That's evidence isn't it? Evidence that species evolve without progressive links between them. I'm no expert either, but I at least have a basic understanding of biology. Missing links don't invalidate the whole chain. Ever see the game show Wheel of Fortune? A few missing letters don't mean there isn't a message. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted May 2, 2019 #2675 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Aquila King said: A theory is different than a hypothesis. A theory is established at the end of the scientific method, after you test the hypothesis and then formulate a conclusion. Whereas a hypothesis is formed near the beginning of the scientific method, and needs to be tested. In other words, there's no such thing as "just a theory." To say that is to insinuate that it's merely a hypothesis or a guess with little to no real solid evidence either way. I'm no expert either, but I at least have a basic understanding of biology. Missing links don't invalidate the whole chain. Ever see the game show Wheel of Fortune? A few missing letters don't mean there isn't a message. Alright but it would seem that a theory that's based on evidence would have to conclude that given all the institutional research done in the field, and because there isn't evidence that there are links between species and that evolution occurs without them. Problem with that is, it shoots down that natural selection is the thing that drives the evolution of species and implies something else is at play. Of course scientifically, that's an elephant in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts