The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Eli G]

... except ...

Yes, science isn't perfect, far from it. It is just the best tool we have today - and that with such a wide margin that it is practically the only tool we have to learn about the real world. And together with engineering, science is what our modern world is build upon.

It is anecdotal. And there are many such anecdotes in medicine. I could add some from personal experience. But I wouldn't call that supernatural. It is just that the human body and especially the human mind is very complex and it is still impossible to control for all variables to systematically examine rare phenomena.

Any comment about the thread?

What is "rare phenomena" here? A supernatural event, a miracle that atheists cann't explain with their all knowing god atheist science?

 

[Kenny]

Where are the hundreds of people, who supposedly healed by Jesus? If they were eyewitnesses of their own healing, then why do you not have hundreds of accounts of healing, dated to the early 30s CE? There are none.

where are the early 30s CE eyewitnesses’ accounts of the resurrection? There are none.

there were supposedly hundreds of saints rising from their graves (at the time of Jesus’ death), and walking the streets of Jerusalem, and yet no one in that decade wrote a single thing about the walking dead saints.

I don't understand... What year did Jesus start his ministries? Who did you want to write these things down? Did you want them catalouged by last name or by age? Why did you want them to write it down immediately?

No, my friend, me thinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[Heyo]

Out of topic again

Got it? Supernatural ... or MIRACLES if preferred.

Which brings us back to the topic (or rather tangent) @Kenny and I were engaged in when you jumped in.
There is a fundamental, unbridgeable difference between a believer and a non believer: for you, it's a miracle, for me it's an unexplained phenomenon. There are no miracles.

 

[Heyo]

Any comment about the thread?

See post #70

What is "rare phenomena" here? A supernatural event, a miracle that atheists cann't explain with their all knowing god atheist science?

We are somewhat in similar but opposite situations here. We have a shipload of evidence for evolution which you can't explain away without referring to miracles and you have some anecdotes that we can't explain using science. I said similar because the difference in scale is overwhelming.

 

[ChristineM]

It is one of many human misfortunes that atheism has brought to humanity. It is as if they have set themselves the goal of destroying decency and human values. Why???

How terrifying!!!

And you actually believe that? How sad, i blame upbringing in religion for such hatred and deliberate misunderstanding

 

[Kenny]

Which brings us back to the topic (or rather tangent) @Kenny and I were engaged in when you jumped in.
There is a fundamental, unbridgeable difference between a believer and a non believer: for you, it's a miracle, for me it's an unexplained phenomenon. There are no miracles.

And I believe that was the message that Jesus shared. Perspectives makes a difference. Either way, my perspective is that God is just as interested in using doctors and science as He is in just doing a miracle or a healing over time. When you have said the body is so amazing that there can be a spontaneous remission of cancer or a disappearing of a tumor... if it was God, one's perspective would still be "well it is just the body" if one didn't believe in miracles. (I think the body in and of itself is just as much a miracle in its capacity and construction)

Either way, we can rejoice that people are getting healed.

I think the dividing line is whether or not one is open and inquisitive enough to ask to be shown--not by man but by God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet people are in court because their "assumption" was wrong. As the legal term is given "a contract in good faith" for which, if not fulfilled, you sue.

So it is quite a true equivocation

No, it's a false equivocation and several people have already explained it to you.
You are playing with the double meaning of the word "faith" here.

Faith, in the sense of earned trust based on precedents on the one hand.
And blind faith in the religious sense on the other, which is not earned trust and which does not have any precedents.

I beg to differ. I do communicate with Him and He communicates with me.

There's this infamous saying:
"when you speak to god, it's called praying. When god speaks back, it's called schizofrenia"

You can't if it is a private organization.

False. Private organizations still have physical owners, an address, a phone number, a bank account, a balance, etc.

Popular bridal dress chain abruptly closes stores, leaving some brides-to-be stranded

Alfred Angelo Bridal abruptly closed its stores Thursday, leaving brides-to-be jilted, as its lawyer said the company planned to file for bankruptcy.

abcnews.go.com

Notice that in this organization the faith they had place their bridal dress didn't produce.

Again playing dishonestly with the double meaning of the word "faith".

You are confusing definition 1 with definition 2.
Although I doubt "confusing" is the right word. "Pretending" might be a better fit.

Again... wrong definition of faith.

Yes, you use a wrong definition of faith. This is why you double down on an equivocation fallacy.

Your employer may be real but you still exercise a measure of faith as noted that not all organization fulfill their contract of good faith.

And I'm fully aware of how people might not fullful their end.
I never consider it a certainty that if I order something online, it will get delivered.
I never consider it a certainty that if I do my job, I'll also get paid.

That is just your strawman coupled with an equivocation fallacy.

We have faith in our doctors, but some doctors have a poor record.

Still doubling down on the equivocation fallacy.

False on your part. I find Him quite detectable.

Empty claim, not in evidence.
Your god is unfalsifiable. That makes her undetectable.

So... we end up with two sides of a coin if not three.

No. We only end up with you doubling down on an equivocation fallacy and a strawman.

You, apparently, are on the unbelief side which you have every right to have. I have a belief side, by virtue of the Last Will and New Testament that went into effect on the death of the Testator, and we have those who are searching for truth.

I'm on the side that doesn't believe fantastical claims without evidence at face value.
I'm quite comfortable on that side.

You are on the side that is indistinguishable from gullibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

non sequitur - it is a break of the "contract of good faith" - a legal term that everyone understands or should understand.

contract-of-good-faith

Which has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "faith" in a religious context.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

then again... there is folklore of Daniel Boone and David Crocket but there is a real history of the two of them.

So because some folklore is correct and / or based on true history, therefor all folklore is?
Is that what you are saying?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But... maybe it isn't anecdotal? How many times does in need to happen for it to cease being anecdotal and it becoming a potential factor?

Dear..........................

The amount of instances does not make a difference to wheter or not it is anecdotal...................

Do you even know what "anecdotal" means?
It sounds like you don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think "supernatural" is a good description of something for which there is no known explanation within the knowledge acquired by humans. If it cannot be explained as a "natural" phenomenon, then it is the opposite.

Classic argument from ignorance.

It seems that atheists are afraid of that word.

No, rather, we don't get a boner from drowning in logical fallacies.

 

[Colt]

The evidence against Darwin Evolution. A simple straightforward presentation that gives us hope in a world that offers only the possibility of a Cosmic accident that cannot be proven:

Life was created and evolved into life as we know it today over millions of years. Evolution is the technique of creation. IMOP

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any comment about the thread?

What is "rare phenomena" here? A supernatural event, a miracle that atheists cann't explain with their all knowing god atheist science?

A phenomenon that can't currently be explained is just an unexplained phenomenon.

To appeal to that ignorance in order to call it "supernatural" is just an argument from ignorance.
When you don't know, then the proper rational stance is "we don't know". Not "god-dun-it".

 

[Kenny]

No, it's a false equivocation and several people have already explained it to you.
You are playing with the double meaning of the word "faith" here.

Faith, in the sense of earned trust based on precedents on the one hand.

Yes... they keep saying that but with no explanation although I have given an explanation. Almost as if, if I say it enough it will be true.

And blind faith in the religious sense on the other, which is not earned trust and which does not have any precedents.

No... that isn't the definition of faith. Blind faith is foolishness and presumption - whether secular or religious.

There's this infamous saying:
"when you speak to god, it's called praying. When god speaks back, it's called schizofrenia"

LOL... well then, call me "schizo" along with the prophets, Jesus, and the disciples.

False. Private organizations still have physical owners, an address, a phone number, a bank account, a balance, etc.

No... not false... you can't access their balances in the checkbook.

What this seems like to me is that you are solidly placed in the "non-belief" side of the coin... which I am fine with because we are all free-will spiritual agents. I am solidly on the belief side. And we can all still have a business lunch together, sit next to each other at a movie theater, get married, have children (if we want them) - et al. This is why Democratic Republic is so amazing.

 

[Kenny]

Dear..........................

The amount of instances does not make a difference to wheter or not it is anecdotal...................

Do you even know what "anecdotal" means?
It sounds like you don't.

OHHHH... I get it now. All the side effects of a drug are simply anecdotal no matter how many times it happens - because we don't have to scientifically research whether or not it was "anecdotal".

Got it!

Remind me to send that information to the Pharmaceutical companies on their new drugs... they will be very happy to know that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes... they keep saying that but with no explanation although I have given an explanation. Almost as if, if I say it enough it will be true.

We have all explained it. I have even given you a dictionary screenshot to illustrate. You just ignore it all and double down on your fallacy.

No... that isn't the definition of faith. Blind faith is foolishness and presumption - whether secular or religious.

It is what religious faith is.

LOL... well then, call me "schizo" along with the prophets, Jesus, and the disciples.

Ok.

No... not false... you can't access their balances in the checkbook.

I looked it up. This is different in the EU. ALL companies here are required to make their finances public.
Thank goodness, I will add. I wouldn't want to do any business with a company that insists on keeping their balances a secret.
When I place an order for thousands of dollars, I would want to know that the company is healthy and not on the brink of bankrupcy.

To bring this in line with the bigger point here, this is how I do things.... I don't just have "faith". I actually investigate before hand.
If it's an order of 10 bucks, I won't go through that trouble and just "risk it".
If it's an order of a few hundred bucks, I will check reviews of the company to see if their customer base is pleased with their service.
If it's an order for thousands of bucks, I will check reviews of the company AND their latest financial publications. If I see there that the customers are super happy, but the company is burning through its reserves at an alarming rate while accumulating mega losses - I'll look elsewhere for my business since chances are it won't survive till the date of having to deliver on my order.

If however the customers are happy and the company is fully in the green and making healthy profits... then they'll earn my trust and I'll be comfortable engaging with them.


I did the same when I was looking for a job btw.
I checked the balance sheet of the company to see if it did well or not.
I also tried to get a hold of employees to ask them how it is to work for said company. Good bosses, good hours, high / low pressure, good pay, how many holidays, interesting work, etc.

What this seems like to me is that you are solidly placed in the "non-belief" side of the coin... which I am fine with because we are all free-will spiritual agents. I am solidly on the belief side.

No. I'm on the rational side, where one doesn't just grant belief by default but demands rational evidence first.

And we can all still have a business lunch together,

Certainly. We can discuss how much you'll pay me for that bridge that I have to sell to you.
After all, you are on the "belief side", right?

sit next to each other at a movie theater,

Sure. It's not like I have a choice there. Seats are numbered.

get married, have children (if we want them) - et al.

No way.
I could not partner up with someone who thinks / believes as you do.
Let alone have kids together.... We'ld be constantly fighting about me insisting on teaching them critical thinking and questioning everything (including what *I* say to them), while you try to brainwash them into gullible believers.

Intellectual matching is an extremely high priority for me.

This is why Democratic Republic is so amazing.

Sure. Although sometimes I wish we could have laws against gullibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OHHHH... I get it now. All the side effects of a drug are simply anecdotal no matter how many times it happens

The side effects of a drug that you find in the prescription in the box, are not the result of rando's claiming side effects.
They are rather the result of rigurous double blind studies where side effects were statistically established as being present.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference.

- because we don't have to scientifically research whether or not it was "anecdotal".

That makes no sense and is further evidence that you don't really understand what "anecdotal" means (and why it is worthless).

When a rando says "I took this medication and then I had a headache", then that is anecdotal.
It is not established that the headache was caused by the medication.

The way to establish that, and to make it NOT anecdotal, is to run a double blind controlled study and find statistical signals of the drug causing headaches in x% of cases.

Got it!

You most certainly did not "get it".

Remind me to send that information to the Pharmaceutical companies on their new drugs... they will be very happy to know that.

They already know it.

 

[F1fan]

No... that isn't the definition of faith. Blind faith is foolishness and presumption - whether secular or religious.

All religious faith is blind faith. When it is secular it is when someone gets scammed. It happens to gullible people either way. This is why learning critical thinking skills allows a person an advanatge to reject outrageous claims. This is why atheists reject religious claims, they lack evidence, and typically are contrary to reality. Certain types of Christians even fail to sabotage science as we have seen in this thread. These tyves of Christians have adopted bad theology due to blind faith.

LOL... well then, call me "schizo" along with the prophets, Jesus, and the disciples.

In the 21st century we question why anyone would believe the Bible in any sense. At best symbolic interpretations can work, but these folks aren't the ones trying to sabotage evolution, it is the blind faith literalists.

What this seems like to me is that you are solidly placed in the "non-belief" side of the coin... which I am fine with because we are all free-will spiritual agents. I am solidly on the belief side. And we can all still have a business lunch together, sit next to each other at a movie theater, get married, have children (if we want them) -

Which is fine until you believers start interfering with education, and science, and liberties like gay and trans rights, and pandemic response, and climate change solutions, and gun safety laws, and supoprt for a criminal ex-president, etc. We need more cititzens who can think critically, not just believe.

et al. This is why Democratic Republic is so amazing.

Which happens to be the sane party that advocates for democracy and ethic, unlike the other one. The republicans of family values is gone. What hapvened to compassionalte conservatism? It's gone, yet evangelicals still support these guys. Blind faith.

 

[Kenny]

We have all explained it. I have even given you a dictionary screenshot to illustrate. You just ignore it all and double down on your fallacy.



It is what religious faith is.




Ok.



I looked it up. This is different in the EU. ALL companies here are required to make their finances public.
Thank goodness, I will add. I wouldn't want to do any business with a company that insists on keeping their balances a secret.
When I place an order for thousands of dollars, I would want to know that the company is healthy and not on the brink of bankrupcy.

To bring this in line with the bigger point here, this is how I do things.... I don't just have "faith". I actually investigate before hand.
If it's an order of 10 bucks, I won't go through that trouble and just "risk it".
If it's an order of a few hundred bucks, I will check reviews of the company to see if their customer base is pleased with their service.
If it's an order for thousands of bucks, I will check reviews of the company AND their latest financial publications. If I see there that the customers are super happy, but the company is burning through its reserves at an alarming rate while accumulating mega losses - I'll look elsewhere for my business since chances are it won't survive till the date of having to deliver on my order.

If however the customers are happy and the company is fully in the green and making healthy profits... then they'll earn my trust and I'll be comfortable engaging with them.


I did the same when I was looking for a job btw.
I checked the balance sheet of the company to see if it did well or not.
I also tried to get a hold of employees to ask them how it is to work for said company. Good bosses, good hours, high / low pressure, good pay, how many holidays, interesting work, etc.




No. I'm on the rational side, where one doesn't just grant belief by default but demands rational evidence first.




Certainly. We can discuss how much you'll pay me for that bridge that I have to sell to you.
After all, you are on the "belief side", right?



Sure. It's not like I have a choice there. Seats are numbered.



No way.
I could not partner up with someone who thinks / believes as you do.
Let alone have kids together.... We'ld be constantly fighting about me insisting on teaching them critical thinking and questioning everything (including what *I* say to them), while you try to brainwash them into gullible believers.

Intellectual matching is an extremely high priority for me.


Sure. Although sometimes I wish we could have laws against gullibility.

Ok... the balance sheet on our extensive and irreconcilable differences on faith et al...

You are on the side of non-belief and I am on the side of belief.

I'm good with that

 

[Kenny]

The side effects of a drug that you find in the prescription in the box, are not the result of rando's claiming side effects.
They are rather the result of rigurous double blind studies where side effects were statistically established as being present.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference.



That makes no sense and is further evidence that you don't really understand what "anecdotal" means (and why it is worthless).

When a rando says "I took this medication and then I had a headache", then that is anecdotal.
It is not established that the headache was caused by the medication.

The way to establish that, and to make it NOT anecdotal, is to run a double blind controlled study and find statistical signals of the drug causing headaches in x% of cases.




You most certainly did not "get it".


They already know it.

Apparently you didn't either.