10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:

Snakelord
“

hence the "x time" part of the original equation

I am just offering an indication as to what I hold as tenable

hence its not clear why it gets the "practical fact" status

I guess that just leaves the minor issues of how the propulsions system and nuclear device was constructed out of bicycle parts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

once again, it's not clear why a whole species can be designated that status.

basically you are arguing that a little bit of biological drift (speciation) can be equated with the full dimensions of what you expect us to swallow in the name of macroevolution (fish being the ancestors of birds)
This is kind of like arguing that since one can make a tricycle out of two bicycles, one can make a nuclear warhead out of bicycles, given enough bicycles and time.
When you offer the eg of a spindly milk sapped plant growing into a slightly different type of spindly milk sapped plant as a logical basis for accepting the transition of a fish to a bird, there should be no problem. The bicycle -> nuclear war head analogy doesn't require any further logical requirements

star shaped candles, star shaped fruit and sheriff's badges for eg.

You can't spot the difference between the claim that one can make a tricycle out of bicycle and the claim one can make a nuclear warhead out of bicycles?

if there was no knowledge of which child was born to which parents in any circumstance, how would you propose that genetic research be initiated?

so in otherwords if there was no star shaped fruit in the world (assuming that you are not advocating that man made the star shaped fruit), sheriff badges of today would look vastly different?

java man for one
I recall he was still on display until the mid 80's
“

once again, in light of the above phenomena and also the sketchy nature of the fossil record, presenting such a case can be challenging

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

once again, indications of similarity do not factually indicate relationships of cause and effect (in all cases)
Would you argue that the non-existence of star fruit would bear a radical consequence on sheriff badges of today?
or would you argue that relationships of cause and effect require a less inductive methodology to be established as "practical facts"?

once again, by deductive models.
Who has ever researched the history of computers by having no idea of what an abacus was?

They would have even less chance of working if the rest of it was constructed exclusively out of bicycle parts too

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you want to reneg on what you said earlier?

“
so how much has been observed of the transition from a fish to a bird?
”
None, for reasons explained to you a few times already.

it does however explain a logical alternative to accepting that nuclear warheads can be constructed (from the warhead device itself to the propulsion system) out of bicycle parts.
It was more a response to the suggestion "there is no other logically tenable alternative to evolution"

still not clear what radical element transitional species bring to the argument.

You haven't seen a fish turn into a bird
You haven;t seen a lizard turn into a bird
All you have seen (even then, it is not your direct perception, but the words of others that you accept as factual on faith, you blind believer you -lol) is a spindly milky sapped plant turning into a sightly different spindly milky sapped plant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Umm... absolutely regardless to length of time, you still wouldn't say that your great... grandmother grew wings. To do so would be foolish, and yet that is exactly what you're saying.

It doesn't, nobody but you is making the statement.

Given that the construction of bicycles or nuclear weapons is completely different and irrelevant, I don't see the point in continuing along this line. You are talking about an inanimate object with an express purpose being purposely turned into something else when the manufacturers have no reason to melt down bikes for the process given that they can secure the needed raw materials in an easier and less costly manner. (Having said that they did still use bicycle keys, but nm). Where is there any relation?

It would be if you didn't try and gain knowledge of the subject from the vedas.

I'm still waiting for you to define macro evolution. Shall I assume that the above bit in brackets is your definition?

However, you accept specation apparently. I assume you do not find it untenable that a fish can, over time, develop the ability to breathe out of water, (it's been seen). I assume you also do not find it untenable that a fish can, over time, can adapt their fins to be supportable limbs - to allow movement outside of water etc, (there are fish that do just that, whales have leg bones blah blah). I assume that if you find neither of these things untenable that you accept the possibility that given time you might find a fish with the ability to move and breathe out of water that cannot breed with it's parent species types? (Speciation - which you have accepted). At what stage lg, given that you seemingly accept the above, do you cease calling it a fish?

So a question... What mechanism do you propose prevents this from happening?

We have seen adaptation, we have seen speciation, we have seen fish with legs, lungs, the ability to survive out of water. The hardcore theist asserts that there is some mechanism that prevents all of this while amusingly enough saying "speciation does happen, adaptation does happen.. evolution doesn't", without realising the worthlessness of what he is saying.

I assume that you do not find it untenable that this not-fish can adapt in various ways. We have seen the Galapagos finch develop a larger beak in just a few years time after a ravage affected most of their diet. Can a not-fish change like this, perhaps its scales adapt into an epidermal layer? If you say no please kindly provide the mechanism that prevents it.

Once again I ask: At what stage do we cease calling it a fish?

If you were to say to someone that you saw an animal walking around on land breathing just fine and it has skin.. Wouldn't they think you a bit mad if you called it a fish? And yet you do not seemingly deny any of this. You call it a "little bit of biological drift", but those little bits make an entirely different whole unless you propose a mechanism that prevents it.

Just to ensure an answer:

1) At what stage do you cease calling it a fish?

2) What mechanism do you propose prevents a fish from becoming a not-fish (given that you do not seemingly deny the things I have mentioned)?

It's actually nothing like it at all because it A) involves inanimate objects that wont do anything by themselves and B) Involves a creator that clearly wouldn't, for obvious reasons, use bicycles to make nukes.

Of course there will be problems when you use an example with two inanimate objects.

This doesn't make for a definition and is fallacious as explained earlier. Please, your definition of 'macro evolution'. Thank you in advance. (You're not going to, are you? I know you too well).

15 year old boy find anonymous sperm donor father on internet: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/03/genetics.news

What?

Java man? What's wrong with that?

So you currently have no case at all? Ok then, can you perhaps propose a mechanism that prevents what I explained earlier?

Given that we are 98.4% genetically identical, I don't think "similarity" quite cuts it.

Your question isn't valid to anything.

And that clearly shows the problem with gaining your understanding of the subject from the vedas. Warheads and bicycles indeed :bugeye:

One wouldn't expect to, no more so than you growing wings means your great.. grandmother did.

Once again...

Not really, but it's quite insignificant coming from the person who espouses his entire understanding of evolution comes from ancient crap, argues that nobody has seen a fish turn into birds, and thinks he can argue against evolution by saying no human ever makes a nuke out of bikes. What more need be said?

So...

1) At what stage does a fish cease being a fish?

2) What mechanism do you propose prevents that which was explained earlier?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am just more alert to your tricks.

You are misusing "inductive", either through misunderstanding of the word or deliberately to confuse. The effect is to deflect the argument into familiar areas. Sorry.

Not inductive. Give it up. And the connection through time is exactly what invalidates your "=" sign - it is change, not equality, through time. You should have a "not =" sign in there, or change your interpretation of your notation.

Not equated with, illustrate a pattern of. It is you who are introducing the bogus "=" signs.

He is just having a momentary difficulty with your deceptive use of words. You are using "observe" as both the casual "see for yourself" and "scientifically record as having happened", depending one which meaning is not relevant.

Quite a bit of the transition from fish to bird has been observed, in the second sense. The observations involve fossil record analysis, geological and other physical studies, genetic studies, physiological comparisons, and so forth.

That is one example of some ways of observing events that are slow. Events that are fast involve other machinery and analysis. Things that are small involve yet other means, things that are large still more machinery, analysis, and reasoning.

Not long ago "thinkers" such as yourself, defending their religious beliefs, contended that small living things had not been observed because the observation involved microscopes. Their existence was thus a matter of theological and philosophical dispute, not observation, and their existence was not a "practical fact". Your arguments here are traditional, in that sense, which must be a comfort to you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Be fair ! LG may be thinking of flying fish

 

SnakeLord
“

I know
but clearly i tis indicated that the passage of time is all that separates a fish from gradually becoming a bird through subsequent generations

cough cough

the relevance lies in logically determining whether there are inherent limitations to design and change.
Actually its not so much the labour issues or even the bicycle lock feature (after all, there are many other types of nuclear devices that don't require bicycle keys) that makes the claim untenable.
It is the fact that bicycles don't contain any of the compounds required to make a nuclear warhead nuclear.
Simply indicating a little tweak in the design (hey look, I can build a tricycle out of two bicycle!) doesn't even begin to compensate for what you demand we swallow in the name of evolution.

once again, it was only offered as a logical alternative
to say the least, you have no evidence to indicate the theory (if you want to call it that) is false

if you have no problem with building a nuclear warhead out of bicycles, be my guest

reference please

my point is that it never stops being a fish, as opposed to a lizard or even a squid.
All that is indicated with speciation is something akin to a tricycle being developed out of bicycle parts

the same that prevents a nuclear warhead being produced from bicycle spare parts

once again, we have seen tricycles constructed out of bicycles.
we also see nuclear warheads being constructed too
:shrug:

"perhaps" is the operative word
if you think the sky's the limit, manufacture a nuclear warhead out of bicycle parts and see how far you get

well, a fish that has lungs is still a fish
a fish that can prop itself on its fins is still a fish

much like a bicycle with three wheels is still a bicycle and a nuclear war head with a bicycle key is a nuclear warhead

certainly, but since the logic you call upon to indicate this is self referential, I don't see your point

first of all indicate a fish that develops an epidermis and starts walking around then we will talk business

when its parents are not a fish
if you disagree, feel free to indicate something that is not a fish being born of a fish (no self-referential logic please)

the same thing that prevents a nuclear warhead from being made exclusively from bicycle spare parts
Its a simple fact of design
just because somethings (tricycles or birds with a slightly bigger beak) can be made from other things (bicycles or birds with a slightly smaller beak) doesn't mean anything (nuclear warheads or birds in general) can be made from anything (bicycles or fish) even though one may be able to indicate some exacting issues of similarity (nuclear warhead and bicycles are made of the exact same time of metals)

true
bicycles don't construct themselves
neither do nuclear warheads
perhaps I should have been more clear and said persons constructing bicycles and nuclear warheads

and why exactly is the reason so clear?
all you have indicated are plants turning into slightly different plants, birds turning into slightly different birds and fish turning into slightly different fish.
Even then, the changes have not been incredibly dramatic - not like say a parrot turning into a king fisher, what to speak of an ostrich.
To use this as a foundation for indicating that a fish can be the ancestor of a bird has just as much credibility as saying bicycles can be used to construct nuclear warheads, since the design of both bicycles and nuclear warheads has undergone slight variations

Once again, I guess I should have been more clear and stated that the candles and the sheriff badge was designed by a person, and that it didn't just create itself

url doesn't work
so if all cases of parenthood were to be determined like this, how would you propose that genetic research take a holding?

hey don't complain
they all share practically identical physical traits
surely an adroit scientifically minded person like yourself can see that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“

metallically a bicycle and a nuclear warhead are also identical at the same rate
same too with the sheriff's badge and the star fruit

what are you talking about?
the star fruit is older than the sheriff's badge
both are about 98.4% identical in terms of shape
surely the shape of the star fruit influenced the design of the sheriff badge
what other logically tenable option is there?

yes
certainly a long shot compared to the idea of fish turning into birds on the basis of fish turning into slightly differently fish and birds turning into slightly different birds
(lol)

gee
I also have not seen nuclear warheads being manufactured out of bicycle spare parts either
:scratchin:

I only brought it up to indicate the hypocrisy of your earlier charges against validating god

“
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
”
'Personal testimony' does not ultimately amount to much. Your argument seems to imply that you believe in alien abduction because people claim to have been abducted by them, you believe in the Loch Ness monster because people claim to have seen it and so on and so forth.

You should be able to answer the question quite sufficiently yourself. To think it's somehow different for your claims would show you're a hypocrite.

“
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
”
The fact of the matter is that you wont find many atheists saying "it must not exist". Evidence however is important to support claims, be it that a god exists or that leprechauns exist. You would demand it in any other situation and to think its any different in this one would show you to be a hypocrite.

pots and kettles

 

Now all you need, to convert that from a creationist, design based argument (such as you have proposed, rightly assuming its absurdity to be obvious) into an evolutionary one, is a mechanism that has left traces of its operation in the sheriff's badge.

Preferably one that explains the distribution of sheriff's badges, their composition, and their traditional employment.

As well as the origins of the star fruit itself, and the differences between varieties of them.

 

the example arose from this : what would be the logical conclusion of finding an abacus at one strata, a calculator on another and a computer on a strata above that.
Snakelord was arguing that relationships of similarity are indubitable enough to indicate relationships of cause and effect.

My point is that relationships of cause and effect, while approachable by inductive means, only really become apparent when we have recourse to deductive measures.

There are many things that do have a relationship of cause and effect that bear similarity.
There are many things that do have a relationship of cause and effect despite not being similar.
There are many things that do not have a relationship of cause and effect that bear similarity.
And there are many things that are beyond our deductive means to determine whether they have a relationship of cause and effect.
Such is the limitations of empiricism.
:shrug:

If you want to argue a different argument than the one snakelord tended, be my guest

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Indicated by you. Nobody else is indicating that fish turn into birds, indeed they keep telling you the opposite. That you keep repeating the fallacious statement changes nothing.

Where in your 'cough cough' link is anything mentioned about fish turning into birds? :bugeye:

What is logical in you using inanimate manmade objects as some form of comparison to something that is the complete opposite? A two storey house can't be peeled so neither can a banana... It's idiotic.

I see. So what is a fish made out of that a creature with legs isn't?

Let me guess.. your continual fallacious statement concerning fish and birds? I think it's more what you are trying to make everyone else swallow and then blame them for. Bizarre behaviour.

Logical how?

? Macro evolution has something to do with a man making an inanimate object? Don't think so..

Tiktaalik for one, mudskippers for two... I doubt you'll find them mentioned in the vedas.

Because...? What mechanism prevents it from being a not-fish. Is there some mechanism that recognises how humans categorise animals?

So the mechanism that prevents evolution is... that a man doesn't make bombs out of bicycles? What a quality argument lg, quality.. :bugeye:

Actually no. A bicycle with three wheels is a tricycle.

Well let's start off simple.. the mudskipper is a good starting candidate.

That would depend upon when you cease calling it a fish, which is a problem considering you've told me it's a fish regardless. It could stand up, start talking and get a day job but you'd still call it a fish apparently.

Design? Once again, you cannot use manmade inanimate objects as a comparison. That's simple foolishness.

Once again it depends upon your personal perspective of what makes a fish a fish. How many "slightly's" would it take? At what stage do you say it's no longer a fish?

I've been waiting for it all this time. It's always inevitable that the creationist eventually asks why cows don't give birth to pussy cats or something similar.

The starfruit wasn't created.. where's the comparison?

A person made something that is similar in shape to things found in nature.. What is your point?

A starfruit is made of the same metal as a sheriffs badge? O....k

Are you an idiot? How many times must I keep explaining the same thing? Your entire argument can be summed up as:

1) Evolution is a fraud because fish don't become birds

2) Evolution is a fraud because people don't make nukes out of bicycles.

C'mon lg, this is quite frankly pathetic - even more so that the error in your statements has to be explained to you over and over and over.

 

The logical conclusions, if any, would follow from a theory. The theory would have to apply. If you followed current creationist thinking as if it were a theory, and applied it (there's no barrier to applying creationism in any circumstances) you might conclude that they were all made at the same time by one being. Along with the strata.

No, he wasn't. If he had been that would have had nothing to do with evolutionary theory or explanation. And that was not your point. Your point was to deflect the argument into a world of "inductive vs deductive" reasoning, and away from the world of scientific theory applied to physical reality.

That is why you set up the star fruit to sheriff's badge as a creationist linkage, with no mechanism or theory, as if its invalidation of naive inductive reasoning were relevant to everything employing inductive reasoning in any way.

And why the distraction of this thread is worth interrupting: the ten questions have been answered in several different ways, illustrating some of the variety of beliefs found in the "atheist" tent. So what now ?

 

Not that I really wanted to jump into this ineffective bantering of equivocation but....

Wholly incorrect.

Time and time again LG, you rant against induction whilst favouring deduction all the while seemingly unaware that deduction is necessarily incapable of deriving verification of anything.

By definition, a deductive argument necessitates at least one proposition be granted a priori status. Given that requirement of certainty, it is clear that any causal relation cannot possibly be conclusively analyzed by deduction unless one is willing to grant the very fact that one is attempting to verify.
This is why all deductive arguments are, strictly speaking, tautological. That is to say, empty; devoid of meaning; useless.

 

well, I guess that about closes the case on the credibility of empirical science

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Snakelord

you keep adding it as a spurious detail as if it changes anything.
If it's not an issue of time and fish being the cause of birds, how many birds would you expect to be seeing if fish never came into creation?

I thought you had tired of the spurious detail tirade and were moving on to the "practical fact" idea.
my mistake.

a two storey house and a banana (according to you anyway) owe their existence to some previous design or cause

you mean a bird?
well feathers, a beak, etc etc etc

feel free to elaborate on what we could expect of the bird population if there had never been any fish

your evidence regarding speciation doesn't outlaw it.
I think it was you who mentioned earlier that there was no other logical conclusion except evolution, based on the findings of speciation.
I just simply offered an alternative

it does have to do with one object being inferred as the cause of another object (primarily on the basis of small change in design).
Much like a tricycle being constructed from bicycles could be extrapolated to encompass the construction of nuclear warheads

my mistake
I thought you were indicating something peer reviewed, like a fish learning how to breath, much like the assertions of spindly milky sapped plants turning into another type of milky sapped spindly plant

if you could indicate something taking birth from a fish that is not a fish, perhaps we could talk business

.
the mechanism is reality
more specifically, cause and effect
the reason a man doesn't make nuclear warheads out of bicycles is because a bicycle cannot be the cause.

you're right
the last line should read
"much like a cycle with three wheels is a cycle"

I wouldn't describe the movements of a mudskipper as walking
A fish that can prop itself up on its fins is as much a fish a cycle with three wheels is still a cycle

I did request for no self-referential logic

why not?
what magical non-design element are you referencing in your claims for evolution?

when you can fill in all the blanks of F x time = B, or even to make it simpler for you, L x time = B.
(when I say fill in the blanks, I mean have falsifiable evidence of speciation and not just present some theoretical model of evolution)

If you want to say

L x time = L1
L1 x time = L2
L2 x time =L3
etc etc
L999 999 999 x time = B

and if you want it to be accepted as something other than a theory, you should have the evidence.

after all, ....
Evidence however is important to support claims, be it that a god exists or that leprechauns exist. You would demand it in any other situation and to think its any different in this one would show you to be a hypocrite.

the starfruit is what started it all off
if we didn't have star fruit, the whole design of sherif badges would be completely different to what we have today

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

cause and effect
what else

sorry
my mistake again
last line should read
"and similarly the starfruit has the same shape as the sheriff badge"

ok
then take fish out of your theory of evolution and where does that leave the birds, oh revered genius of logic?

it doesn't require any more logic than your claim fish are the ancestors of birds

for some reason you think introducing transitional species offers a radically different element to your argument.
Suppose a parent was anticipating the marriage of their 2 year old child in 20 years time.
would you chide them that it was foolish of them to think it was an issue of time since before the child can get married they must develop some social skills and educational qualifications as well as get outfitted biologically with a functioning reproductive system?
Or would you think that the issue of saying "in twenty years time" would incorporate all these transitional phases?

 

Quite the contrary.
Empirical science has nothing to do with deduction, as you very well know.

 

sorry
I don't know that
neither does anyone involved in the learning or teaching of any empirical discipline either

 

Your first statement, although probably facetious, is correct.

Your second one however, is false (to say nothing of the fact that you cannot speak for those folk..).

 

lol
and you can speak for them?

Its not even clear how you could teach the notion that deductive reasoning does not play a part of empirical reasoning without relying on some sort of deductive model, much less establish it as factual.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

????

Clearly you have a serious misunderstanding of empiricism.

What's more, the teaching of a methodology does not require any deductive support (rather, inductive would suffice..).

And facticity is a function of verification; simply observing anyone making use of an empirical methodology would suffice.

 

Creation? I think that's where most of your problem lies.

A clear indication that you don't even pay attention. Scroll back. You said nobody has seen a fish turn into a bird, I said they wouldn't expect to, to which you said it shouldn't get practical fact status. I then said it didn't, and you then provided a link that didn't say it. What are you trying to argue? Do you even know? Wakey wakey.

Not me. I merely explained that speciation has been observed. I then asked you to give me the definition of macro evolution but never received a proper answer. The best you did was something about a nuclear bomb, but I fail to see where that comes into it.

Object? Explain. Are you saying macro evolution means a frog becoming a dog?

Once again that depends entirely upon where and how you make the distinction. You told me that you never would, that causes a significant problem with indicating that which you ask for.

And according to you a cycle with a body shell and 4 wheels is a cycle, but it's a car.

You'll find that you are the one espousing 'magic'.

Speciation has been observed. What's the problem?

F doesn't = b. You've been told 20 times now.

There's plenty of evidence... Unless you're using one more of your messed up versions of what a word means.

Your question does not in any way change that fish don't become birds. Work it out and get back to me. No, don't use the vedas.

Wtf are you babbling on about?

 

Snakelord

so fish are eternal?

My point was that I thought your saying "it didn't" was in relation to the "practical fact" query.
I was under the impression that you had moved on from beating the dead horse about how a fish is the ancestor of a bird yet it is fallacious to suggest that given enough time, a fish through its subsequent generations can give rise to a bird.
I should have known better ....

it comes into play when advocating that a fish is the ancestor a bird

I dealt with it in my previous post

If you want to say

L x time = L1
L1 x time = L2
L2 x time =L3
etc etc
L999 999 999 x time = B

and if you want it to be accepted as something other than a theory, you should have the evidence.

after all, ....
Evidence however is important to support claims, be it that a god exists or that leprechauns exist. You would demand it in any other situation and to think its any different in this one would show you to be a hypocrite.

for some reason you didn't respond to it in this post
:shrug:

if it has a combustion engine, yes

great
then you shouldn't have any trouble indicating the evidence of how a fish became a bird, as opposed to indicating how a spindly milk sapped plant became a spindly milk sapped plant

It sure doesn't
especially when you can only call upon spindly milk sapped plants becoming spindly milk sapped plants to evidence it

fine
then fill in the blanks of a fish being the ancestor of a bird and quit talking of spindly milk sapped plants

.
what do you propose replaces the fish?
spindly milk sapped plants?

just illustrating the spurious nonsense of your argument
if a person says "in 20 years time it would be nice if my daughter married a nice man" that tends to encompass issues of the girl developing socially and biologically.
Similarly to say "over time, a fish can develop into a bird" encompasses the issues of it going through the transitional phases of a lizard etc.

I think you understand this.

No I am not talking about the vedas
:shrug:

 

No one is saying this except you. The rest of us are pointing out that your equal signs there are all invalid.

At least, if you intend to describe standard evolutionary theory.

If you want to talk about standard evolutionary theory, beginning by inventing some other theory is not going to get you very far.

The most likely explanation for this long chain of repetitive BS is that you don't understand evolutionary theory, and really believe your description there has something to do with it.