no scientist alive today understands macroevolution

[The_Squid]

19 minutes ago, Altai said:

Yes I believe it does not exist because there is no proof he is exist. I cant say it does not exist with a certain discourse because there is a possiblity that it may be exist.

You just contradicted yourself.  Maybe you're having trouble with the English language.

Edited December 9, 2016 by The_Squid

[The_Squid]

15 minutes ago, betsy said:

Why can't you say there is no God?  Are you an agnostic?

Yes.

 

Quote

Furthermore, what's this cockamamie line, "I don't believe in gods?"   

If you're a sensible person with no chips on your shoulders, you won't be saying "I don't believe in gods" if you know there is a possibility that God exists!  Especially when there's nothing to support that He doesn't exists! 

So you believe in Zeus?

[Altai]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

You just contradicted yourself.  Maybe you're having trouble with the English language.

Nope I didnt. You cant understand because you dont want to understand.

[The_Squid]

11 minutes ago, Altai said:

Nope I didnt. You cant understand because you dont want to understand.

You said you believe it doesn't exist.  

No one talks like that.   If you are talking about Bigfoot, a normal person says "I don't believe bigfoot exists".  

[Altai]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

You said you believe it doesn't exist.  

No one talks like that.   If you are talking about Bigfoot, a normal person says "I don't believe bigfoot exists".  

I dont believe big foot exists = I believe big foot does not exist

[The_Squid]

24 minutes ago, Altai said:

I dont believe big foot exists = I believe big foot does not exist

No it doesn't.

 

Quote

 

http://atheist-faq.com/isn-t-believing-that-god-doesn-t-exist-the-same-thing-as-not-believing-in-god

Not having a belief is not accepting a claim as true. If one actively believed there was no god, that would be accepting a claim as true. One who lacks a belief is waiting to find out what's actually true. 

 

 

[Altai]

22 hours ago, The_Squid said:

No it doesn't.

 

 

If you are a one who lacks a belief and waiting to find out whats actually true, this means you have to stay neutral but you dont stay neutral because you say "I dont believe that there is God". You are talking direct about an uncertainty. If you want to stay neutral you should say "I have no idea what is God and whether or not such a thing is exist". This is neutral.

[The_Squid]

3 minutes ago, Altai said:

If you are a one who lacks a belief and waiting to find out whats actually true, this means you have to stay neutral but you dont stay neutral because you say "I dont believe that there is God". You are talking direct about an uncertainty. If you want to stay neutral you should say "I have no idea what is God and whether or not such a thing is exist". This is neutral.

So, do you believe in Zeus?  If you don't disbelieve anything, then you end up talking nonsense.  I don't believe in any gods, but they may or may not exist...  

[Altai]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

So, do you believe in Zeus?  If you don't disbelieve anything, then you end up talking nonsense.  I don't believe in any gods, but they may or may not exist...  

I dont know what is Zeus and I dont believe Zeus. So I believe Zeus does not exist but I cant guarantee 100% that it does not exist. 

I dont believe in any Gods but they may or may not exist = I believe they dont exist = Atheism is a belief

Edited December 10, 2016 by Altai

[The_Squid]

 

Just now, Altai said:

I dont know what is Zeus and I dont believe Zeus. So I believe Zeus does not exist but I can guarantee 100% that it does not exist. 

I dont believe in any Gods but they may or may not exist = I believe they dont exist.

You're simply wrong and you didn't read what I posted.

Quote

http://atheist-faq.com/isn-t-believing-that-god-doesn-t-exist-the-same-thing-as-not-believing-in-god

Not having a belief is not accepting a claim as true. If one actively believed there was no god, that would be accepting a claim as true. One who lacks a belief is waiting to find out what's actually true.

 

 

[Altai]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

 

You're simply wrong and you didn't read what I posted.

 

Your source says the same thing with me

" To say that not believing in a god is the same as believe there are no gods, is like saying that not believing there's an odd number of stars in the universe is the same as believing there's an even number. "


If you are neutral (non-believer) and waiting to find some evidences, you should not say "I dont believe there is God". Beucase this automatically make you a believer of non-existence of God. You should act neutral. 

 

[betsy]

Why is that funny?  That's  science!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

Another fly in the ointment of evolution......

Why are children predisposed to  believe in God?

 

 

Quote

 

Children are born believers in God, academic claims

Children are "born believers" in God and do not simply acquire religious beliefs through indoctrination, according to an academic.

Nov 2008

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

More Studies Show Children Are Wired for Religious Belief: A Brief Literature Review

Casey Luskin

August 7, 2014

 

Back in April, David Klinghoffer noted a story in the Wall Street Journal about how Boston University psychologist Deborah Kelemen advocates “suppressing” belief in a “God-like designer” by trying “to get young children to understand the mechanism of natural selection before the alternative intentional-design theory had become too entrenched.” What was intriguing was not just how evolutionary scientists are scrambling to indoctrinate children against perceiving intelligent design in nature, but also how children have an innate tendency to recognize that design and, furthermore, to believe in a personal creator.

Indeed, I wrote earlier about how humans seem to be hard-wired for religious belief, and was reminded by an e-mail correspondent about how many other studies there are that show children have a predisposition to believe in God. What follows is a short literature review of scholarship that arrives at the same conclusion: young children seem wired to be “intuitive theists.”

 

https://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/more_studies_sh/

[Guest]

I think the fact that a child, raised alone on a desert island, would come to believe in God is more an argument against the existence of Gods than one for.

[hot enough]

On 5/14/2016 at 0:11 PM, betsy said:

You're dead wrong.

How are you going to illustrate that, Betsy, from Popular Mechanics?

[hot enough]

14 hours ago, betsy said:

Another fly in the ointment of evolution......

Why are children predisposed to  believe in God?

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

Because he has such a perfect place to do such experiments, a world where children live without it being filled with wacky 24 hours a day religious brainwashing. 

[hot enough]

16 hours ago, betsy said:

Why is that funny?  That's  science!

You will never know until you cut yourself free from your mental bonds, Betsy.

[betsy]

20 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I think the fact that a child, raised alone on a desert island, would come to believe in God is more an argument against the existence of Gods than one for.

How so?  Explain.

[betsy]

6 hours ago, hot enough said:

Because he has such a perfect place to do such experiments, a world where children live without it being filled with wacky 24 hours a day religious brainwashing. 

You don't make any sense.  I suggest you read the articles very carefully............ and try to understand what you're reading.  I'll have to ignore your childish comment.

Edited April 18, 2017 by betsy

[Guest]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

How so?  Explain.

It illustrates the propensity for humans to explain away the unexplainable by turning to the supernatural, or the fantastic.  If a child on a desert island will make up a God to fit her perceptions, why not anyone?

[GostHacked]

On 12/9/2016 at 0:51 PM, Altai said:

I have never heard it and I cant make any statement about something unknown.

God is an unknown. Yet statements are made about God all the time, yet NO ONE HAS MET GOD!!!

[Moonlight Graham]

Macroevolution doesn't seem too hard to understand: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_42

So basically, members of a species are separated geographically, then evolve over time via mutations and natural selection until their genetics have become so different that they can no longer mate with each other and a new species develops.

Noah's ark and Genesis never happened.

 

[betsy]

44 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It illustrates the propensity for humans to explain away the unexplainable by turning to the supernatural, or the fantastic.  If a child on a desert island will make up a God to fit her perceptions, why not anyone?

 

But, why are children drawn to think of God as the explanation.  That's the point.

It shows humans are "hardwired" to God.

Edited April 18, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

10 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Macroevolution doesn't seem too hard to understand: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_42

So basically, members of a species are separated geographically, then evolve over time via mutations and natural selection until their genetics have become so different that they can no longer mate with each other and a new species develops.

Noah's ark and Genesis never happened.

 

All you've stated has been debunked!

If it isn't too hard to understand, there wouldn't be any debate about it, and all scientists will have consensus that it's real, and not just some fairy tale.

 

Let's face it.  It's macroevolution that looks more myth than Genesis.  There are things that support Genesis, whereas nothing supports macro-evolution!  You guys who ignore the evidence being presented think and try to "reason" like 9/11 truthers!  The same MO.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

52 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

God is an unknown. Yet statements are made about God all the time, yet NO ONE HAS MET GOD!!!

 

Oh, the silly "arguments"  some can come up with.....

 

Have you met your great-great-great -great-great-great  grandmother?  Maybe, NOBODY IN YOUR FAMILY EVEN TALK ABOUT HER!  You don't have a clue how she even looked like.  Surely she existed? 

 

Furthermore, if God is transcendent, outside of time and space - how do you expect to meet Him?  How can He be inside His creation? He's outside of creation, and you're just one of them.

Edited April 18, 2017 by betsy