# God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")



## abu afak

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
_"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

*God of the gaps
*
(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`


----------



## abu afak

`





​`


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

It is also known as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That there is no objective, documented evidence that explains a scientific inquiry, doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’


----------



## IsaacNewton

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps
> *
> (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
> 
> *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
> *Therefore the cause must be supernatural.
> 
> One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
> 
> God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `



By extension the 'god of the gaps' argument could be anything. "We don't know so Zeus did it". "Well we just don't know so it must be Zarathustra". Or "The Great Juju of the Sea". 

But of course you are trying to argue rationally with people that are irrational. They have no interest in evidence to begin with. They believe what they believe 'just coz'.


----------



## abu afak

IsaacNewton said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps
> *
> (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
> 
> *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
> *Therefore the cause must be supernatural.
> 
> One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
> 
> God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By extension the 'god of the gaps' argument could be anything. "We don't know so Zeus did it". "Well we just don't know so it must be Zarathustra". Or "The Great Juju of the Sea".
> 
> But of course you are trying to argue rationally with people that are irrational. They have no interest in evidence to begin with. They believe what they believe 'just coz'.
Click to expand...

Or, like the Clown 'Boss', they claim "all evidence is subjective", and "everything" is evdience of god. 
`


----------



## IsaacNewton

abu afak said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps
> *
> (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
> 
> *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
> *Therefore the cause must be supernatural.
> 
> One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
> 
> God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By extension the 'god of the gaps' argument could be anything. "We don't know so Zeus did it". "Well we just don't know so it must be Zarathustra". Or "The Great Juju of the Sea".
> 
> But of course you are trying to argue rationally with people that are irrational. They have no interest in evidence to begin with. They believe what they believe 'just coz'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, like the Clown 'Boss', they claim "all evidence is subjective", and "everything" is evdience of god.
> `
Click to expand...


Yes they attempt to couch everything as 'we don't know so therefore it could be anything'. As if you have to know 100% of something to know anything about it and any unknown in any field means 'it's obviously god'. It is so tedious and lazy to try to make an argument like this.


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps
> *
> (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
> 
> *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
> *Therefore the cause must be supernatural.
> 
> One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
> 
> God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `





toobfreak said:


> It goes without saying.  However you view religion, the very definition of "God" is the supreme original creator of all that is.  I like Kaku, he's a smart guy. * Something had to create the universe; * I like Kaku's idea of God's mind being the music of the cosmic multiverse.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps
> *
> (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
> 
> *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
> *Therefore the cause must be supernatural.
> 
> One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
> 
> God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes without saying.  However you view religion, the very definition of "God" is the supreme original creator of all that is.  I like Kaku, he's a smart guy. * Something had to create the universe; * I like Kaku's idea of God's mind being the music of the cosmic multiverse.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Which is fine and doesn't really get in the way of science. "Science describes how the heavens go", not how go to heaven.


----------



## toobfreak

abu afak said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps
> *
> (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
> 
> *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
> *Therefore the cause must be supernatural.
> 
> One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
> 
> God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes without saying.  However you view religion, the very definition of "God" is the supreme original creator of all that is.  I like Kaku, he's a smart guy. * Something had to create the universe; * I like Kaku's idea of God's mind being the music of the cosmic multiverse.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You speak of reading hard books as if their complexity alone makes them more valid, yet you cannot even master the complexities of replying to a single post.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Remember what Arthur C. Clarke said.................

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Maybe the Big Guy Upstairs is someone with some really cool tech?


----------



## abu afak

toobfreak said:


> You speak of reading hard books as if their complexity alone makes them more valid, yet you cannot even master the complexities of replying to a single post.


The question was answered by telling we don't know the answer to the question, but that doesn't in any way mean that god is the answer.
Your Fallacious proposition busted.
In fact, in all cases we have a verdict (thousands) gods created as 'explanations' have Failed.
god/s keep getting wittled down from their former explanation for everything as we learn.

I might add, which/Witch god do you mean since there are still many, and ergo, at least 75% of Religionists are necessarily wrong even if one stepped in it.
`


----------



## toobfreak

ABikerSailor said:


> Remember what Arthur C. Clarke said.................
> 
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> 
> Maybe the Big Guy Upstairs is someone with some really cool tech?




It's all just cool technology to the owner and user looking downward.  PFM to the onlooker gazing upward.  The difference is who gets to be the owner and user vs. all the rest who are merely onlookers.


----------



## toobfreak

abu afak said:


> Your Fallacious proposition busted.



You cannot denounce an alleged fallacy merely by creating an even bigger one.  Reality creates words, not the other way around.  When you can tell me you've witnessed a sense of the Brahmajyoti Effulgence while within the 3-body Brahmanic state, then we can talk.  But by then, you'll have nothing to say.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ABikerSailor said:


> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


To this quote, i say:

"Not to someone who is smart enough not to believe in magical nonsense."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> When you can tell me you've witnessed a sense of the Brahmajyoti Effulgence while within the 3-body Brahmanic state, then we can talk


Why? Personal and eyewitness testimony is just about the most unreliable evidence which exists. Raise your bar, dude.


----------



## abu afak

toobfreak said:


> You cannot denounce an alleged fallacy merely by creating an even bigger one.  Reality creates words, not the other way around.  When you can tell me you've witnessed a sense of the Brahmajyoti Effulgence while within the 3-body Brahmanic state, then we can talk.  But by then, you'll have nothing to say.


I didn't create any fallacy.
I just pointed out yours... which remains.. and remains Uncontested.
You used 'God of the Gaps' FALLACY.
Now you know what it is.
Your welcome Rev.

Then to add Ultra-stupid/another fallacy,  you said I have to achieve Brahamanic state!
I don't have to achieve anything.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps
> *
> (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
> 
> *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
> *Therefore the cause must be supernatural.
> 
> One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
> 
> God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `



So ignorant.  You do not even know what God of the Gaps is.  I've heard the universe and we are here when we're not supposed to and that is proof of the big bang and abiogenesis.

The argument is fallacious, but it's not because it's called God of the Gaps.  The latter was a warning to creation scientists.  You do not even know what type of fallacy it is.


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can tell me you've witnessed a sense of the Brahmajyoti Effulgence while within the 3-body Brahmanic state, then we can talk
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Personal and eyewitness testimony is just about the most unreliable evidence which exists. Raise your bar, dude.
Click to expand...



There is no bar higher in this world than personal experience.  You need to get some.  The bar I mentioned is already a mile beyond you at the ceiling of this world.  Sadly, the "bar" you think of as a standard is nothing but a bar of the mundane.  Science is replete throughout history of tests and observations having passed that bar over and over only to be disproved as totally wrong again years later.  The bar you know and speak of is the very same one that once told scientists, philosophers, Kings and rulers that the world was flat.


----------



## toobfreak

abu afak said:


> <snip>I didn't create any fallacy. I don't have to achieve anything.



You certainly didn't.  You merely live it.  That is your achievement.


----------



## abu afak

toobfreak said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>I didn't create any fallacy. I don't have to achieve anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly didn't.  You merely live it.  That is your achievement.
Click to expand...

So you have NO answer to my Porking your Fallacious God of the Gaps premise/rationale.
Zero.

Nor your idiotic claim that I must be in a Brahaminic state.
You dishonest last-wording clown.
You Lost.
`


----------



## toobfreak

abu afak said:


> So you have NO answer to my Porking your Fallacious God of the Gaps premise/rationale.


Never tried to answer it, how dim it was, but if I did, you have no ears to hear it anyway.


> Nor your idiotic claim that I must be in a Brahaminic state.


Likewise, I made no such claim.


> You Lost.


It was never a "contest."  You're only competing against yourself, a battle you can never win, a battle you can never lose, that's why you do it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> There is no bar higher in this world than personal experience.


What a joke. That is the worst kind of evidence which exists.


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no bar higher in this world than personal experience.
> 
> 
> 
> What a joke. That is the worst kind of evidence which exists.
Click to expand...



If I shock you with a 600V cattle prod leaving no mark, and all the evidence you have is your direct, personal experience, then I can tell you it never happened?!   
Apparently you wouldn't even believe yourself.
Perhaps you're not even reading this sentence right now.
Hoo Boy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> If I shock you with a 600V cattle prod leaving no mark, and all the evidence you have is your direct, personal experience, then I can tell you it never happened?!


What a stupid goddamn question. In order to get others to believe it, i would have to show evidence. How does someone with your scientific experience and expertise fall down such a stupid rabbit hole in such a simple discussion?

Wasy answer: religion. This is what it does to the brains of otherwise rational, smart people.


----------



## james bond

God of the Gaps was originally a warning to creation scientists from people like Francis Bacon not to use God as a source for validating the scientific method.  People like Isaac Newton was guilty of using it.  The atheists usurped it for their own use during the Big Bang theory debates.  

It is an argument from ignorance type fallacy.  Just because today's science systematically eliminates God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible from secular science does not mean that God theory or Bible theory is invalid.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  One cannot make the assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary as the OP does.  His thinking is a dumb fallacy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Just because today's science systematically eliminates God


No it doesn't, what an embarrassingly stupid thing to say. And fool can still point at anything we know about the universe and say, "God did that!:, and it will affect nothing.

your problem is that science has eliminated , bit by bit, your specific little brand of magical dogma. But, knowing how useless and stupid it would be to sate this honestly and plainly, you undertake your charlatan's parlor tricks and  instead insert "God" in place of your embarrassingly dumb dogma.

You aren't really fooling anyone.  Not that you care... you are mostly just trying to fool yourself.


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I shock you with a 600V cattle prod leaving no mark, and all the evidence you have is your direct, personal experience, then I can tell you it never happened?!
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid goddamn question. In order to get others to believe it, i would have to show evidence.
Click to expand...


I never said anything about getting others to believe anything.  That is all you.  I was talking about raising the bar of personal evidence.  Nothing is more sure than personal experience and ultimately that is what counts most in religion and frankly, even with an employer.  One year of actually DOING is worth ten years of paper and book knowledge.  Like a witness, nothing counts more than a person who has had direct experience.  I can't SHOW you personal evidence of how to find or believe in God but I can help you find the path to see it for yourself.

But like all atheists, you don't even want to take one step down the path, you want it all handed to you while standing on one leg then say it cannot exist because you haven't seen it.  Your kind are getting very tiresome.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> I never said anything about getting others to believe anything.


Good. Then we are in agreement: it's the worst kind of evidence.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because today's science systematically eliminates God
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, what an embarrassingly stupid thing to say. And fool can still point at anything we know about the universe and say, "God did that!:, and it will affect nothing.
> 
> your problem is that science has eliminated , bit by bit, your specific little brand of magical dogma. But, knowing how useless and stupid it would be to sate this honestly and plainly, you undertake your charlatan's parlor tricks and  instead insert "God" in place of your embarrassingly dumb dogma.
> 
> You aren't really fooling anyone.  Not that you care... you are mostly just trying to fool yourself.
Click to expand...


How can it be _embarrassingly stupid_ when that is what secular scientists believed before 1850?  It's a valid theory, but has been systematically eliminated by today's science.

Any stupid ignoramus "fool can still point at anything we know about the universe and say," the big bang did that.  The people who believe this shat are mind numbing stupid because no one can reproduce or repeat or find singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density.  No one can reproduce or repeat cosmic inflation.  What kind of stupid farks are these people???!!!???!!!  They think it can happen at LHC, but it hasn't and won't.  STUPID.  STUPID.  STUPID.  LMAO .


----------



## Moonglow

Nice thread but it's in the wrong forum..


----------



## Moonglow

ABikerSailor said:


> Remember what Arthur C. Clarke said.................
> 
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> 
> Maybe the Big Guy Upstairs is someone with some really cool tech?


According to Revelations Jesus alits using a Mustang but not a Ford Mustang..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> How can it be _embarrassingly stupid_ when that is what secular scientists believed before 1850?


Who gives a shit what they thought? Is that the best you can do?  It may eliminate the need for god to explain something, but nothing can"eliminate god". You can't rule out magical hooha.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be _embarrassingly stupid_ when that is what secular scientists believed before 1850?
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit what they thought? Is that the best you can do?  It may eliminate the need for god to explain something, but nothing can"eliminate god". You can't rule out magical hooha.
Click to expand...


Righteous people, i.e. people who want to be right (know the truth) haha, give a sh*t.  It means that God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible were the standard before the lies took over at the Tower of Babel.  As I said, "God of the Gaps" was a warning originally for Christian scientists to not use God when they are stuck for answers.  God can fill-in-the-blank for a lot of answers which isn't science nor the scientific method.

Today's secular science has been replaced by the big bang, abiogenesis and multiverses of the gaps.  The only thing that has any evidence for it is dark matter and dark energy of the gaps, but it's scant.  Otherwise, your scientists would be able to produce another universe, life from non-life which we can use to populate other planets and choose which universe to live in.  Maybe some people can't stand each other so much they have to be in another universe .


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Righteous people, i.e. people who want to be right (know the truth) haha, give a sh*t.  It means that God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible were the standard before the lies took over at the Tower of Babel. ....


There is NO God/s in evidence in this thread. 
Please refrain from putting that goofy fantasy in your posts until you can justify it/them with anything but your faith/delusions.
*'God/s' is/are OFF Topic in Sci section unless you can Rev.
'God/s' is/are TROLLING here.*
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Righteous people, i.e. people who want to be right (know the truth) haha, give a sh*t.


Not me, and i said why. Yet you absolutely refuse to the point i made...because you are a dishonest little charlatan.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Today's secular science has been replaced by the big bang, abiogenesis and multiverses of the gaps


No it hasn't . You have no idea what you are talking about and should probably shut up. We aren't a bunch of willing, ignorant little children that people like you and Ken Ham like to brainwash.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Moonglow said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what Arthur C. Clarke said.................
> 
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> 
> Maybe the Big Guy Upstairs is someone with some really cool tech?
> 
> 
> 
> According to Revelations Jesus alits using a Mustang but not a Ford Mustang..
Click to expand...


I thought He was coming back in a Delorean like the one in Back to the Future.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Righteous people, i.e. people who want to be right (know the truth) haha, give a sh*t.  It means that God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible were the standard before the lies took over at the Tower of Babel. ....
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO God/s in evidence in this thread.
> Please refrain from putting that goofy fantasy in your posts until you can justify it/them with anything but your faith/delusions.
> *'God/s' is/are OFF Topic in Sci section unless you can Rev.
> 'God/s' is/are TROLLING here.*
> `
Click to expand...


It just goes to show you're not RIGHTEOUS.  As I said, plain as day, "God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible were the standard" before the 1850s.  That is part of creation science and not religion.  I will take back the "lies.. at Tower of Babel."  That belongs in religion.

The rest of your post is silly.  It goes to show that you do not understand science at all.  Your OP shows that.  Your post shows that.  Your attitude and aptitude shows that.


----------



## TNHarley

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps
> *
> (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
> 
> *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
> *Therefore the cause must be supernatural.
> 
> One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
> 
> God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `


Thats what you freaks do with AGW


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's secular science has been replaced by the big bang, abiogenesis and multiverses of the gaps
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't . You have no idea what you are talking about and should probably shut up. We aren't a bunch of willing, ignorant little children that people like you and Ken Ham like to brainwash.
Click to expand...


You're quote mining by taking my post out of context.  I provided the singularity with "infinite" temperature and density.  That is impossible in the physical world.  We can only get close to infinity like all the grains of sand in the universe.  This is because we cannot divide by zero.  (Only God can divide by zero because he's a creator.)  Furthermore, I mentioned cosmic inflation.  That is impossible, too, in the physical world.  It doesn't happen in nature.  Moreover, there are no multiverses as we can't have a universe from quantum particles or "nothing."  If we can have quantum particles, then we can have Schrodinger's cat.  As for abiogenesis, the evidence is all circumstantial.  To be accepted using the scientific method, you have to have direct evidence, too.  It's a colossal fail in the scientific method, but people are brainwashed into believing it so it's atheist science of the gaps.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TNHarley said:


> Thats what you freaks do with AGW


AGW Iis a solid theory and enjoys overwhelming consensus...don't compare it to believing in zombie Kings and sky daddies, you embarrass yourself to do so.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what you freaks do with AGW
> 
> 
> 
> AGW Iis a solid theory and enjoys overwhelming consensus...don't compare it to believing in zombie Kings and sky daddies, you embarrass yourself to do so.
Click to expand...


Haha.  You're embarrassing yourself with the AGW since AGW is supposed to kill animals.  For example, anthrax kills animals.  That's observable, testable and falsifiable.  AGW doesn't even hurt a fly let alone kill a dinosaur.  Plants thrive in that environment and that's why it doesn't kill animals.  .


----------



## TNHarley

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what you freaks do with AGW
> 
> 
> 
> AGW Iis a solid theory and enjoys overwhelming consensus...don't compare it to believing in zombie Kings and sky daddies, you embarrass yourself to do so.
Click to expand...

Lol


----------



## ABikerSailor

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what you freaks do with AGW
> 
> 
> 
> AGW Iis a solid theory and enjoys overwhelming consensus...don't compare it to believing in zombie Kings and sky daddies, you embarrass yourself to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You're embarrassing yourself with the AGW since AGW is supposed to kill animals.  For example, anthrax kills animals.  That's observable, testable and falsifiable.  AGW doesn't even hurt a fly let alone kill a dinosaur.  Plants thrive in that environment and that's why it doesn't kill animals.  .
Click to expand...


Might wanna rethink that thought there dude.  Coral is a living organism, and because they can only survive in a very narrow temperature band, if it gets too hot, they will die off, and all the other animals that depend on the coral reef will also die.

Corals Are Dying on the Great Barrier Reef

*Diver surveys based off Cape York, Australia's northeastern tip, found up to 50 percent mortality in the reef from coral bleaching. Death among the organisms that build the reef's structure is most likely linked to rising temperatures in the ocean, the government announced.    


"The corals in the remote far north of the reef experienced extremely hot and still conditions this summer, and were effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with," Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a statement.


Bleaching occurs when warm ocean water stresses corals to the point that they expel the tiny algae, known as zooxanthellae, that normally live inside their tissues. The algae provide the corals with most of their food, as well as their color. If the heat stress is lessened soon enough, the coral can recover. If not the, organisms will die.


What's happening in Australia is part of a global trend. Over the last year, about 12 percent of the world's reefs have bleached, due to El Niño and climate change. Scientists have predicted that nearly half of these reefs (more than 4,600 square miles or 12,000 square kilometers, or more than five percent of reefs) could disappear forever. That warming trend is expected to continue through the year, leading to what may be the longest global coral bleaching event in history.*


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> It just goes to show you're not RIGHTEOUS.  As I said, plain as day, "God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible were the standard" before the 1850s.  That is part of creation science and not religion.  I will take back the "lies.. at Tower of Babel."  That belongs in religion.
> 
> The rest of your post is silly.  It goes to show that you do not understand science at all.  Your OP shows that.  Your post shows that.  Your attitude and aptitude shows that.


There is still no god/dog in evidence.
This is the Science section
You're TROLLING and OFF topic..
`


----------



## james bond

ABikerSailor said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what you freaks do with AGW
> 
> 
> 
> AGW Iis a solid theory and enjoys overwhelming consensus...don't compare it to believing in zombie Kings and sky daddies, you embarrass yourself to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You're embarrassing yourself with the AGW since AGW is supposed to kill animals.  For example, anthrax kills animals.  That's observable, testable and falsifiable.  AGW doesn't even hurt a fly let alone kill a dinosaur.  Plants thrive in that environment and that's why it doesn't kill animals.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might wanna rethink that thought there dude.  Coral is a living organism, and because they can only survive in a very narrow temperature band, if it gets too hot, they will die off, and all the other animals that depend on the coral reef will also die.
> 
> Corals Are Dying on the Great Barrier Reef
> 
> *Diver surveys based off Cape York, Australia's northeastern tip, found up to 50 percent mortality in the reef from coral bleaching. Death among the organisms that build the reef's structure is most likely linked to rising temperatures in the ocean, the government announced.
> 
> 
> "The corals in the remote far north of the reef experienced extremely hot and still conditions this summer, and were effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with," Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a statement.
> 
> 
> Bleaching occurs when warm ocean water stresses corals to the point that they expel the tiny algae, known as zooxanthellae, that normally live inside their tissues. The algae provide the corals with most of their food, as well as their color. If the heat stress is lessened soon enough, the coral can recover. If not the, organisms will die.
> 
> 
> What's happening in Australia is part of a global trend. Over the last year, about 12 percent of the world's reefs have bleached, due to El Niño and climate change. Scientists have predicted that nearly half of these reefs (more than 4,600 square miles or 12,000 square kilometers, or more than five percent of reefs) could disappear forever. That warming trend is expected to continue through the year, leading to what may be the longest global coral bleaching event in history.*
Click to expand...


I agree that if it gets too hot then the corals die off as in the article, but what if it's just change to the weather or due to the warm current?  Would you admit that it wasn't caused by AGW?  Because those corals have recovered the following year.


----------



## ABikerSailor

james bond said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what you freaks do with AGW
> 
> 
> 
> AGW Iis a solid theory and enjoys overwhelming consensus...don't compare it to believing in zombie Kings and sky daddies, you embarrass yourself to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You're embarrassing yourself with the AGW since AGW is supposed to kill animals.  For example, anthrax kills animals.  That's observable, testable and falsifiable.  AGW doesn't even hurt a fly let alone kill a dinosaur.  Plants thrive in that environment and that's why it doesn't kill animals.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might wanna rethink that thought there dude.  Coral is a living organism, and because they can only survive in a very narrow temperature band, if it gets too hot, they will die off, and all the other animals that depend on the coral reef will also die.
> 
> Corals Are Dying on the Great Barrier Reef
> 
> *Diver surveys based off Cape York, Australia's northeastern tip, found up to 50 percent mortality in the reef from coral bleaching. Death among the organisms that build the reef's structure is most likely linked to rising temperatures in the ocean, the government announced.
> 
> 
> "The corals in the remote far north of the reef experienced extremely hot and still conditions this summer, and were effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with," Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a statement.
> 
> 
> Bleaching occurs when warm ocean water stresses corals to the point that they expel the tiny algae, known as zooxanthellae, that normally live inside their tissues. The algae provide the corals with most of their food, as well as their color. If the heat stress is lessened soon enough, the coral can recover. If not the, organisms will die.
> 
> 
> What's happening in Australia is part of a global trend. Over the last year, about 12 percent of the world's reefs have bleached, due to El Niño and climate change. Scientists have predicted that nearly half of these reefs (more than 4,600 square miles or 12,000 square kilometers, or more than five percent of reefs) could disappear forever. That warming trend is expected to continue through the year, leading to what may be the longest global coral bleaching event in history.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that if it gets too hot then the corals die off as in the article, but what if it's just change to the weather or due to the warm current?  Would you admit that it wasn't caused by AGW?  Because those corals have recovered the following year.
Click to expand...


No, those corals haven't recovered.  12 percent of the world's coral reefs were bleached last year.  And, bleaching means they die and don't recover, which results in the animals that depend on the coral will either die or move to another place.


----------



## TNHarley

ABikerSailor said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what you freaks do with AGW
> 
> 
> 
> AGW Iis a solid theory and enjoys overwhelming consensus...don't compare it to believing in zombie Kings and sky daddies, you embarrass yourself to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You're embarrassing yourself with the AGW since AGW is supposed to kill animals.  For example, anthrax kills animals.  That's observable, testable and falsifiable.  AGW doesn't even hurt a fly let alone kill a dinosaur.  Plants thrive in that environment and that's why it doesn't kill animals.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might wanna rethink that thought there dude.  Coral is a living organism, and because they can only survive in a very narrow temperature band, if it gets too hot, they will die off, and all the other animals that depend on the coral reef will also die.
> 
> Corals Are Dying on the Great Barrier Reef
> 
> *Diver surveys based off Cape York, Australia's northeastern tip, found up to 50 percent mortality in the reef from coral bleaching. Death among the organisms that build the reef's structure is most likely linked to rising temperatures in the ocean, the government announced.
> 
> 
> "The corals in the remote far north of the reef experienced extremely hot and still conditions this summer, and were effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with," Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a statement.
> 
> 
> Bleaching occurs when warm ocean water stresses corals to the point that they expel the tiny algae, known as zooxanthellae, that normally live inside their tissues. The algae provide the corals with most of their food, as well as their color. If the heat stress is lessened soon enough, the coral can recover. If not the, organisms will die.
> 
> 
> What's happening in Australia is part of a global trend. Over the last year, about 12 percent of the world's reefs have bleached, due to El Niño and climate change. Scientists have predicted that nearly half of these reefs (more than 4,600 square miles or 12,000 square kilometers, or more than five percent of reefs) could disappear forever. That warming trend is expected to continue through the year, leading to what may be the longest global coral bleaching event in history.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that if it gets too hot then the corals die off as in the article, but what if it's just change to the weather or due to the warm current?  Would you admit that it wasn't caused by AGW?  Because those corals have recovered the following year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those corals haven't recovered.  12 percent of the world's coral reefs were bleached last year.  And, bleaching means they die and don't recover, which results in the animals that depend on the coral will either die or move to another place.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt. Just because they bleach doesnt mean they die. 
Look at the indian ocean. In the late 90s, 80 percent got bleached and around 25 percent died.


----------



## ABikerSailor

TNHarley said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGW Iis a solid theory and enjoys overwhelming consensus...don't compare it to believing in zombie Kings and sky daddies, you embarrass yourself to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  You're embarrassing yourself with the AGW since AGW is supposed to kill animals.  For example, anthrax kills animals.  That's observable, testable and falsifiable.  AGW doesn't even hurt a fly let alone kill a dinosaur.  Plants thrive in that environment and that's why it doesn't kill animals.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might wanna rethink that thought there dude.  Coral is a living organism, and because they can only survive in a very narrow temperature band, if it gets too hot, they will die off, and all the other animals that depend on the coral reef will also die.
> 
> Corals Are Dying on the Great Barrier Reef
> 
> *Diver surveys based off Cape York, Australia's northeastern tip, found up to 50 percent mortality in the reef from coral bleaching. Death among the organisms that build the reef's structure is most likely linked to rising temperatures in the ocean, the government announced.
> 
> 
> "The corals in the remote far north of the reef experienced extremely hot and still conditions this summer, and were effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with," Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a statement.
> 
> 
> Bleaching occurs when warm ocean water stresses corals to the point that they expel the tiny algae, known as zooxanthellae, that normally live inside their tissues. The algae provide the corals with most of their food, as well as their color. If the heat stress is lessened soon enough, the coral can recover. If not the, organisms will die.
> 
> 
> What's happening in Australia is part of a global trend. Over the last year, about 12 percent of the world's reefs have bleached, due to El Niño and climate change. Scientists have predicted that nearly half of these reefs (more than 4,600 square miles or 12,000 square kilometers, or more than five percent of reefs) could disappear forever. That warming trend is expected to continue through the year, leading to what may be the longest global coral bleaching event in history.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that if it gets too hot then the corals die off as in the article, but what if it's just change to the weather or due to the warm current?  Would you admit that it wasn't caused by AGW?  Because those corals have recovered the following year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those corals haven't recovered.  12 percent of the world's coral reefs were bleached last year.  And, bleaching means they die and don't recover, which results in the animals that depend on the coral will either die or move to another place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesnt. Just because they bleach doesnt mean they die.
> Look at the indian ocean. In the late 90s, 80 percent got bleached and around 25 percent died.
Click to expand...


I call BS.  Provide a link that shows the Indian Ocean had 80 percent of their coral reefs bleached.


----------



## TNHarley

ABikerSailor said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  You're embarrassing yourself with the AGW since AGW is supposed to kill animals.  For example, anthrax kills animals.  That's observable, testable and falsifiable.  AGW doesn't even hurt a fly let alone kill a dinosaur.  Plants thrive in that environment and that's why it doesn't kill animals.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might wanna rethink that thought there dude.  Coral is a living organism, and because they can only survive in a very narrow temperature band, if it gets too hot, they will die off, and all the other animals that depend on the coral reef will also die.
> 
> Corals Are Dying on the Great Barrier Reef
> 
> *Diver surveys based off Cape York, Australia's northeastern tip, found up to 50 percent mortality in the reef from coral bleaching. Death among the organisms that build the reef's structure is most likely linked to rising temperatures in the ocean, the government announced.
> 
> 
> "The corals in the remote far north of the reef experienced extremely hot and still conditions this summer, and were effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with," Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a statement.
> 
> 
> Bleaching occurs when warm ocean water stresses corals to the point that they expel the tiny algae, known as zooxanthellae, that normally live inside their tissues. The algae provide the corals with most of their food, as well as their color. If the heat stress is lessened soon enough, the coral can recover. If not the, organisms will die.
> 
> 
> What's happening in Australia is part of a global trend. Over the last year, about 12 percent of the world's reefs have bleached, due to El Niño and climate change. Scientists have predicted that nearly half of these reefs (more than 4,600 square miles or 12,000 square kilometers, or more than five percent of reefs) could disappear forever. That warming trend is expected to continue through the year, leading to what may be the longest global coral bleaching event in history.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that if it gets too hot then the corals die off as in the article, but what if it's just change to the weather or due to the warm current?  Would you admit that it wasn't caused by AGW?  Because those corals have recovered the following year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those corals haven't recovered.  12 percent of the world's coral reefs were bleached last year.  And, bleaching means they die and don't recover, which results in the animals that depend on the coral will either die or move to another place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesnt. Just because they bleach doesnt mean they die.
> Look at the indian ocean. In the late 90s, 80 percent got bleached and around 25 percent died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call BS.  Provide a link that shows the Indian Ocean had 80 percent of their coral reefs bleached.
Click to expand...

Corals and Coral Reefs


----------



## ABikerSailor

TNHarley said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might wanna rethink that thought there dude.  Coral is a living organism, and because they can only survive in a very narrow temperature band, if it gets too hot, they will die off, and all the other animals that depend on the coral reef will also die.
> 
> Corals Are Dying on the Great Barrier Reef
> 
> *Diver surveys based off Cape York, Australia's northeastern tip, found up to 50 percent mortality in the reef from coral bleaching. Death among the organisms that build the reef's structure is most likely linked to rising temperatures in the ocean, the government announced.
> 
> 
> "The corals in the remote far north of the reef experienced extremely hot and still conditions this summer, and were effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with," Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a statement.
> 
> 
> Bleaching occurs when warm ocean water stresses corals to the point that they expel the tiny algae, known as zooxanthellae, that normally live inside their tissues. The algae provide the corals with most of their food, as well as their color. If the heat stress is lessened soon enough, the coral can recover. If not the, organisms will die.
> 
> 
> What's happening in Australia is part of a global trend. Over the last year, about 12 percent of the world's reefs have bleached, due to El Niño and climate change. Scientists have predicted that nearly half of these reefs (more than 4,600 square miles or 12,000 square kilometers, or more than five percent of reefs) could disappear forever. That warming trend is expected to continue through the year, leading to what may be the longest global coral bleaching event in history.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that if it gets too hot then the corals die off as in the article, but what if it's just change to the weather or due to the warm current?  Would you admit that it wasn't caused by AGW?  Because those corals have recovered the following year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those corals haven't recovered.  12 percent of the world's coral reefs were bleached last year.  And, bleaching means they die and don't recover, which results in the animals that depend on the coral will either die or move to another place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesnt. Just because they bleach doesnt mean they die.
> Look at the indian ocean. In the late 90s, 80 percent got bleached and around 25 percent died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call BS.  Provide a link that shows the Indian Ocean had 80 percent of their coral reefs bleached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corals and Coral Reefs
Click to expand...


Current conditions are much worse than what they were in the 80's, and the water around the reefs is heating up for longer periods of time now.  And, yes, even your link says that coral reefs are dying from both bleaching and ocean acidification, which dissolves the calcium skeletons of the corals, and they are currently on the decline.  Even said that one reef in Hawaii is currently being dissolved.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TNHarley said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGW Iis a solid theory and enjoys overwhelming consensus...don't compare it to believing in zombie Kings and sky daddies, you embarrass yourself to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  You're embarrassing yourself with the AGW since AGW is supposed to kill animals.  For example, anthrax kills animals.  That's observable, testable and falsifiable.  AGW doesn't even hurt a fly let alone kill a dinosaur.  Plants thrive in that environment and that's why it doesn't kill animals.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might wanna rethink that thought there dude.  Coral is a living organism, and because they can only survive in a very narrow temperature band, if it gets too hot, they will die off, and all the other animals that depend on the coral reef will also die.
> 
> Corals Are Dying on the Great Barrier Reef
> 
> *Diver surveys based off Cape York, Australia's northeastern tip, found up to 50 percent mortality in the reef from coral bleaching. Death among the organisms that build the reef's structure is most likely linked to rising temperatures in the ocean, the government announced.
> 
> 
> "The corals in the remote far north of the reef experienced extremely hot and still conditions this summer, and were effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with," Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a statement.
> 
> 
> Bleaching occurs when warm ocean water stresses corals to the point that they expel the tiny algae, known as zooxanthellae, that normally live inside their tissues. The algae provide the corals with most of their food, as well as their color. If the heat stress is lessened soon enough, the coral can recover. If not the, organisms will die.
> 
> 
> What's happening in Australia is part of a global trend. Over the last year, about 12 percent of the world's reefs have bleached, due to El Niño and climate change. Scientists have predicted that nearly half of these reefs (more than 4,600 square miles or 12,000 square kilometers, or more than five percent of reefs) could disappear forever. That warming trend is expected to continue through the year, leading to what may be the longest global coral bleaching event in history.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that if it gets too hot then the corals die off as in the article, but what if it's just change to the weather or due to the warm current?  Would you admit that it wasn't caused by AGW?  Because those corals have recovered the following year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those corals haven't recovered.  12 percent of the world's coral reefs were bleached last year.  And, bleaching means they die and don't recover, which results in the animals that depend on the coral will either die or move to another place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesnt. Just because they bleach doesnt mean they die.
> Look at the indian ocean. In the late 90s, 80 percent got bleached and around 25 percent died.
Click to expand...

And as the oceans get warmer and more acidic, more coral will bleach, and more coral will die.


----------



## TNHarley

ABikerSailor said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that if it gets too hot then the corals die off as in the article, but what if it's just change to the weather or due to the warm current?  Would you admit that it wasn't caused by AGW?  Because those corals have recovered the following year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those corals haven't recovered.  12 percent of the world's coral reefs were bleached last year.  And, bleaching means they die and don't recover, which results in the animals that depend on the coral will either die or move to another place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesnt. Just because they bleach doesnt mean they die.
> Look at the indian ocean. In the late 90s, 80 percent got bleached and around 25 percent died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call BS.  Provide a link that shows the Indian Ocean had 80 percent of their coral reefs bleached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corals and Coral Reefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Current conditions are much worse than what they were in the 80's, and the water around the reefs is heating up for longer periods of time now.  And, yes, even your link says that coral reefs are dying from both bleaching and ocean acidification, which dissolves the calcium skeletons of the corals, and they are currently on the decline.  Even said that one reef in Hawaii is currently being dissolved.
Click to expand...

It was the late 90s.
And yes, some corals die from bleaching. However, it isnt automatic, like you claimed.


----------



## ConservativeAmerica

Atheists frequently use the evolution of the gaps fallacy, where they blindly insert evolution as an explanation for things we don't understand. I'm not just talking biology, either; it's oozed it's way into cosmology, and elsewhere.

*Deep Thinker*: _"How did the universe get so orderly and comprehensible, exactly as we'd expect it to be if it were the product of design?"_

*Atheist*: _"Evolution done it!"_

It's merely filling a gap in ignorance with a blind plea to the mystical "evolution." It's embarrassing stuff, especially when the same people using the evolution of the gaps fallacy moan about the God of the gaps fallacy.


----------



## abu afak

ConservativeAmerica said:


> Atheists frequently use the evolution of the gaps fallacy, where they blindly insert evolution as an explanation for things we don't understand. I'm not just talking biology, either; it's oozed it's way into cosmology, and elsewhere.
> 
> *Deep Thinker*: _"How did the universe get so orderly and comprehensible, exactly as we'd expect it to be if it were the product of design?"_
> 
> *Atheist*: _"Evolution done it!"_
> 
> It's merely filling a gap in ignorance with a blind plea to the mystical "evolution." It's embarrassing stuff, especially when the same people using the evolution of the gaps fallacy moan about the God of the gaps fallacy.


1. Evolution has Evidence. Lots.
God/s have none.

2. The universe is NOT "so orderly and comprehensible.."
it's a mess.
Galaxies colliding, Stars exploding, causing unimaginable destruction.
Billions of planets at a time losing life if they have any.

3. You're mixing and matching the Universe with Evolution pilgrim.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ConservativeAmerica said:


> Atheists frequently use the evolution of the gaps fallacy, where they blindly insert evolution as an explanation for things we don't understand


name one specific example. Not the idiotic philosophical example where you assumed the things you must argue.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ConservativeAmerica said:


> *Deep Thinker*: _"How did the universe get so orderly and comprehensible, exactly as we'd expect it to be if it were the product of design?"_


Well this is an embarrassingly stupid and circular bit of nonsense. What would a "not designed" universe look like? Who gives a shit about your impressions about what looks designed in what does not? Those are scientific ideas; those are your gut feelings.


----------



## ConservativeAmerica

abu afak said:


> ConservativeAmerica said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists frequently use the evolution of the gaps fallacy, where they blindly insert evolution as an explanation for things we don't understand. I'm not just talking biology, either; it's oozed it's way into cosmology, and elsewhere.
> 
> *Deep Thinker*: _"How did the universe get so orderly and comprehensible, exactly as we'd expect it to be if it were the product of design?"_
> 
> *Atheist*: _"Evolution done it!"_
> 
> It's merely filling a gap in ignorance with a blind plea to the mystical "evolution." It's embarrassing stuff, especially when the same people using the evolution of the gaps fallacy moan about the God of the gaps fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Evolution has Evidence. Lots.
> God/s have none.
> 
> 2. The universe is NOT "so orderly and comprehensible.."
> it's a mess.
> Galaxies colliding, Stars exploding, causing unimaginable destruction.
> Billions of planets at a time losing life if they have any.
> 
> 3. You're mixing and matching the Universe with Evolution pilgrim.
> `
Click to expand...


This post is so bad that to respond to it with anything other than a single line of condensation and Muttley laughing would be giving it far more respect than it deserves.


----------



## ConservativeAmerica

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ConservativeAmerica said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists frequently use the evolution of the gaps fallacy, where they blindly insert evolution as an explanation for things we don't understand
> 
> 
> 
> name one specific example. Not the idiotic philosophical example where you assumed the things you must argue.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to hold you by the hand and walk you through it, as I'm not the kind of person who has that kind of free time, Mr. 20,000 Messages. Instead, I'll simply give you a nudge in the right direction:







That's Harvard. Notice how they shoehorn the word "evolution" onto every aspect of existence? This is because evolution is a magical word that can be used to pseudo-explain anything and everything, without bothering any pesky details or evidence. It's used in exactly the same manner the ultra-religious use the term God. The difference is, the ultra-religious don't try to pass their claims off of as science. We can't say the same for the "evolution done it" dummies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ConservativeAmerica said:


> I'm not going to hold you by the hand and walk you through it


Which is not what giving "one example" would be. This is you just prancing and preening,honestly thinking you have somehow covered for the fact that you are full of shit. It didn't work. You are, indeed, full of shit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ConservativeAmerica said:


> Notice how they shoehorn the word "evolution" onto every aspect of existence?


What a stupid example. That is not an example of the scientific theory of evolution being wedged where it doesn't belong. The word "evolution" has its own meaning and is used in other contexts. Just as if I would call individual units in a collection of units "quanta", but would not in any way be injecting the theory of quantum mechanics into the discussion.

What a hilariously stupid attempt on your part


----------



## abu afak

> 1. Evolution has Evidence. Lots.
> God/s have none.
> 
> *2. The universe is NOT "so orderly and comprehensible.."
> it's a mess.
> Galaxies colliding, Stars exploding, causing unimaginable destruction.
> Billions of planets at a time losing life if they have any.*
> 
> 3. You're mixing and matching the Universe with Evolution pilgrim.
> `





ConservativeAmerica said:


> *This post is so bad that to respond to it with anything other than a single line of condensation and Muttley laughing would be giving it far more respect than it deserves.*


*IOW, you were 100% Refuted and Stumped.*

`


----------



## K9Buck

abu afak said:


> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `



It depends on what one is willing to accept as "evidence" of God.  To me, there is a preponderance of evidence to support the existence of our creator, aka "God".


----------



## abu afak

K9Buck said:


> It depends on what one is willing to accept as "evidence" of God.  To me, there is a preponderance of evidence to support the existence of our creator, aka "God".


Would evidence for your 'god' be better than for anyone's else's 'god'?
[Willy-Nilly] Attributing things to god does not cut it either.
`


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Let's go paragraph by paragraph.
> """At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.""""
> 
> What's false about this, dummy?


THIS Is what's wrong with it.
Your post is one giant GOD OF THE GAPS FALLACY.
IOW, IF WE DON'T KNOW/KNOW YET, IT MUST BE GOD.
WRONG.
That's same idiot's rationale used for 10,000 other Debunked 'gods"' Fire, Lightening, Fertility, etc.
SEE THE OP.
*Because we don't know/don't know yet, you claim the unknown "Must be spirit." $&&%$
That's illogical/non sequitur/Stoopid.

Further, You post like a 10 year old and bury-em,-with-BS artist.
Posting/bludgeoning 5 or 6 'responses' in a row, unable to organize your thoughts into a single coherent reply AND trying to drown your opponent rather debate him.




abu afak said:



			This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

Click to expand...

*


abu afak said:


> *God of the gaps*​​*(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]*​​*The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...*​
> 
> *2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument*
> 
> *The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:*​​**There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.*​**Therefore the cause must be supernatural.*​​*One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]*​​*God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]*​
> 
> *There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> *


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go paragraph by paragraph.
> """At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.""""
> 
> What's false about this, dummy?
> 
> 
> 
> THIS Is what's wrong with it.
> Your post is one giant GOD OF THE GAPS FALLACY.
> IOW, IF WE DON'T KNOW/KNOW YET, IT MUST BE GOD.
> WRONG.
> That's same idiot's rationale used for 10,000 other Debunked 'gods"' Fire, Lightening, Fertility, etc.
> SEE THE OP.
> *Because we don't know/don't know yet, you claim the unknown "Must be spirit." $&&%$
> That's illogical/non sequitur/Stoopid.
> 
> Further, You post like a 10 year old and bury-em,-with-BS artist.
> Posting/bludgeoning 5 or 6 'responses' in a row, unable to organize your thoughts into a single coherent reply AND trying to drown your opponent rather debate him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​*(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]*​​*The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...*​
> 
> *2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument*
> 
> *The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:*​​**There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.*​**Therefore the cause must be supernatural.*​​*One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]*​​*God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]*​
> 
> *There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's not a very mensa like reply, dummy.  

So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.


----------



## ding

#winning


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `


They used to have so many gaps to fill. Now all they have left is, "Well, what about BEFORE the Big Bang, huh? Huh?!?!"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what one is willing to accept as "evidence" of God.  To me, there is a preponderance of evidence to support the existence of our creator, aka "God".
Click to expand...

Actual evidence doesn't depend on anyone's perspective.


----------



## ding

There's no gap. Matter and energy cannot be an eternal source without reaching thermal equilibrium.

The only possible eternal source for a universe which breeds beings that know and create is beyond energy and matter.

So call it whatever you want. but it is clear from what was created it is not undirected. Everything about the universe screams purpose.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> They used to have so many gaps to fill. Now all they have left is, "Well, what about BEFORE the Big Bang, huh? Huh?!?!"
Click to expand...

There was consciousness without form.  Because it can't be energy or matter.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

These poor religious nutters... for centuries they had such a robust, fertile area of ignorance in which to shove their whimsical voodoo.  God of the trees, god of the weather, god of the tides, god of the black death...

Now they have nothing but childish first-mover arguments and ontological parlor tricks. And the funniest part is that they call these things "proof" (see forthcoming pages of copypasta word salads from ding the plagiarizer).


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> These poor religious nutters... for centuries they had such a robust, fertile area of ignorance in which to shove their whimsical voodoo.  God of the trees, god of the weather, god of the tides, god of the black death...
> 
> Now they have nothing but childish first-mover arguments and ontological parlor tricks. And the funniest part is that they call these things "proof" (see forthcoming pages of copypasta word salads from ding the plagiarizer).


That doesn't say much about you since you can't defeat a childish argument, now does it?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> There was consciousness without form.  Because it can't be energy or matter.


Really!
Any EVIDENCE?
Or just your particular religious Faith/ (Faith: belief without evidence)

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was consciousness without form.  Because it can't be energy or matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Really!
> Any EVIDENCE?
> Or just your particular religious Faith/ (Faith: belief without evidence)
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You mean besides energy and matter can't be an eternal cause and that the laws of nature make the universe an intelligence creating machine?


----------



## ding

Going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything which unfolded since space and time were created from nothing was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.


----------



## Blackrook

You will never fill the gap when it comes to the question of how the universe came to exist.


----------



## Death Angel

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `


Are you talking about the "gap theory" of creation? As far as I'm concerned, it is THE explanation


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blackrook said:


> You will never fill the gap when it comes to the question of how the universe came to exist.


Yet you claim to have done so with your sky daddy. You cant escape your own dishonesty and irony if you try.


----------



## abu afak

Blackrook said:


> You will never fill the gap when it comes to the question of how the universe came to exist.


That's what they said about Fire... Lightning, fertility, etc
They invented a god for what they didn't understand yet.
Welcome to God of the Gaps.

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will never fill the gap when it comes to the question of how the universe came to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they said about Fire... Lightning, fertility, etc
> They invented a god for what they didn't understand yet.
> Welcome to God of the Gaps.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

No.  That's not how it happened, dummy.

Those concepts were rejected by Abraham.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> *No.  That's not how it happened, dummy.
> 
> Those concepts were rejected by Abraham.*


LOL
Abraham Who?
You Deranged freak?









						Abraham - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*"Historicity*
In the early and middle 20th century, leading archaeologists such as William F. Albright and biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt believed that the patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable Composites of people who lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE.
But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts challenged these views; these arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson's _The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives_ (1974), and John Van Seters' _Abraham in History and Tradition_ (1975). Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts.

*His thesis centered on the Lack of compelling evidence that the Patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations[7].

By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.[8]""*


`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No.  That's not how it happened, dummy.
> 
> Those concepts were rejected by Abraham.*
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> Abraham Who?
> You Deranged freak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Historicity*
> In the early and middle 20th century, leading archaeologists such as William F. Albright and biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt believed that the patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable Composites of people who lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE.
> But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts challenged these views; these arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson's _The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives_ (1974), and John Van Seters' _Abraham in History and Tradition_ (1975). Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts.
> 
> *His thesis centered on the Lack of compelling evidence that the Patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations[7].
> 
> By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.[8]""*
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Seems like the concept of falsifiability applies here.  As in it cannot be falsified.  But what cannot be denied is the diametrically opposed beliefs that Abraham introduced compared to the beliefs of his day.  The creator of existence, the unity of God, the incorporeality of God.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> That's what they said about Fire... Lightning, fertility, etc
> They invented a god for what they didn't understand yet.
> Welcome to God of the Gaps.





ding said:


> No. That's not how it happened, dummy.
> 
> Those concepts were rejected by Abraham.





abu afak said:


> LOL
> Abraham Who?
> You Deranged freak?


So getting back to your ridiculous implication that Judaeo-Christian beliefs were based on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand and why this is a ridiculous assertion.

Judaeo-Christian beliefs replaced polytheistic beliefs that believed on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand.  Judaeo-Christian beliefs are literally the diametric opposite of god of gaps beliefs.

How is it that a supposed super intelligent member of Mensa could not know that?


----------



## ding




----------



## ChemEngineer

ABikerSailor said:


> No, those corals haven't recovered.  12 percent of the world's coral reefs were bleached last year.  And, bleaching means they die and don't recover, which results in the animals that depend on the coral will either die or move to another place.



You're not up to date on coral reef research.  Scientists now know that bleaching is a cyclical process, very much like fires as shown in a recent published study  I read, and you obviously did not.    Systems may burn from lightning, but they rebound.  So too do coral reefs.
You delight in bad news which advances your cynical Leftist narrative.  The truth will always elude you.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they said about Fire... Lightning, fertility, etc
> They invented a god for what they didn't understand yet.
> Welcome to God of the Gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That's not how it happened, dummy.
> 
> Those concepts were rejected by Abraham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> Abraham Who?
> You Deranged freak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So getting back to your ridiculous implication that Judaeo-Christian beliefs were based on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand and why this is a ridiculous assertion.
> 
> Judaeo-Christian beliefs replaced polytheistic beliefs that believed on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand.  Judaeo-Christian beliefs are literally the diametric opposite of god of gaps beliefs.
> 
> How is it that a supposed super intelligent member of Mensa could not know that?
Click to expand...

So there's no real evidence of Abraham I-suck and Jacob. 
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they said about Fire... Lightning, fertility, etc
> They invented a god for what they didn't understand yet.
> Welcome to God of the Gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That's not how it happened, dummy.
> 
> Those concepts were rejected by Abraham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> Abraham Who?
> You Deranged freak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So getting back to your ridiculous implication that Judaeo-Christian beliefs were based on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand and why this is a ridiculous assertion.
> 
> Judaeo-Christian beliefs replaced polytheistic beliefs that believed on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand.  Judaeo-Christian beliefs are literally the diametric opposite of god of gaps beliefs.
> 
> How is it that a supposed super intelligent member of Mensa could not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there's no real evidence of Abraham I-suck and Jacob.
> `
Click to expand...

Way to change the subject, Mr. Mensa.  

Judaeo-Christian beliefs replaced polytheistic beliefs that believed on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand.  Judaeo-Christian beliefs are literally the diametric opposite of god of gaps beliefs.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Way to change the subject, Mr. Mensa.
> 
> Judaeo-Christian beliefs replaced polytheistic beliefs that believed on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand.  Judaeo-Christian beliefs are literally the diametric opposite of god of gaps beliefs.


Judeo Christian beliefs are the same Godditit beliefs, and just another branch of Polytheism, concentrating power in one MAGIC place instead of many magic place.

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to change the subject, Mr. Mensa.
> 
> Judaeo-Christian beliefs replaced polytheistic beliefs that believed on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand.  Judaeo-Christian beliefs are literally the diametric opposite of god of gaps beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Judeo Christian beliefs are the same Godditit beliefs, and just another branch of Polytheism, concentrating power in one MAGIC place instead of many magic place.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You are an idiot.  I love that you made a claim a Mensa claim.  That was so funny.


----------



## ChemEngineer

ding said:


> Judaeo-Christian beliefs replaced polytheistic beliefs that believed on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand.  Judaeo-Christian beliefs are literally the diametric opposite of god of gaps beliefs.



ding, you are wasting your time and everyone elses trying to reason with the patently unreasonable.
Consider that those who parrot the "god of the gaps" nonsense themselves believe that nothing of the gaps created everything.  Nothing of the gaps defined the extraordinarily fine tuned physical constants which make our lives not  just possible but elegant and beautiful.  Nothing of the gaps, they pretend, created the continuous electromagnetic spectrum, the elegant construction of matter, from only three disparate building blocks.    Try it some time yourself in the garage.  See how many different things you can make from three identical things, with no glue, no nails, no screws.

While reflecting  on this magnificence last week, I had the epiphany that electrons form not only the external surface of every element, making them solid and strong, but also make possible our computers, our refrigerators and televisions and our brains as they move through not only copper cables, but also along our very nerves and brain cells.  Nothing did this. Nothingdidit.

Ain't nothin' grand.  Ain't nothin' better than nothin'.  You got dat?

P.S.  In anticipation of the giggy "gotcha," Who made God?

If somebody made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?"-  Professor John Lennox, Oxford University  (A Matter of Gravity on YouTube - This should be required watching for all believers in NothingDidIt.)


----------



## ding

ChemEngineer said:


> ding, you are wasting your time and everyone elses trying to reason with the patently unreasonable.


I'm not trying to reason with him.  I am defeating him.


----------



## ChemEngineer

ding said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ding, you are wasting your time and everyone else's trying to reason with the patently unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to reason with him.  I am defeating him.
Click to expand...


In decades of discussion, I have never ONCE seen or heard a Leftist admit defeat.  Not once.
Evil is like that.
.


----------



## abu afak

> abu afak: Judeo Christian beliefs are the same Godditit beliefs, and just another branch of Polytheism, concentrating power in one MAGIC place instead of many magic place.





> Dingo: You are an idiot.  I love that you made a claim a Mensa claim.  That was so funny.


So no rebuttal whatsoever in your posts/posts, just stupid ad hom.

Really, that's your problem here.
*So let me save you additional years of making a Fool of your indoctrinated self in public with the basic facts.

There is Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution in many fields of science.
It is the very basis of modern biology.
There is NO evidence for god, your alternative. (just 'Faith', believe withOut evidence)*

You can jabber (pretend you found a bitsy mistake) all you like you 12 IQ asshole, but that's where we stand now and will always stand.
*But basically it's all Goddidit/god of the gaps/Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.*
That's it.

*If you were even a little smart you would realize YOUR FAITH is not evidence, and it's false object can Never be shown by anything but your emotions.*
There is NO way to avoid your ongoing problem.
Same with all the godists.
Your religion (one of Thousands extant) is your personal fantasy.
ie, PoliticalChic doesn't even try/won't state her belief because she, at least, knows it's undefendable on a logical basis.


*EDIT note the above Juvenile Picture show/Political IDIOCY by ChemEngineer which has nothing to do with there being a god or not, or contradicting Evolution.*

`
`


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judaeo-Christian beliefs replaced polytheistic beliefs that believed on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand.  Judaeo-Christian beliefs are literally the diametric opposite of god of gaps beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding, you are wasting your time and everyone elses trying to reason with the patently unreasonable.
> Consider that those who parrot the "god of the gaps" nonsense themselves believe that nothing of the gaps created everything.  Nothing of the gaps defined the extraordinarily fine tuned physical constants which make our lives not  just possible but elegant and beautiful.  Nothing of the gaps, they pretend, created the continuous electromagnetic spectrum, the elegant construction of matter, from only three disparate building blocks.    Try it some time yourself in the garage.  See how many different things you can make from three identical things, with no glue, no nails, no screws.
> 
> While reflecting  on this magnificence last week, I had the epiphany that electrons form not only the external surface of every element, making them solid and strong, but also make possible our computers, our refrigerators and televisions and our brains as they move through not only copper cables, but also along our very nerves and brain cells.  Nothing did this. Nothingdidit.
> 
> Ain't nothin' grand.  Ain't nothin' better than nothin'.  You got dat?
> 
> P.S.  In anticipation of the giggy "gotcha," Who made God?
> 
> If somebody made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?"-  Professor John Lennox, Oxford University  (A Matter of Gravity on YouTube - This should be required watching for all believers in NothingDidIt.)
Click to expand...



Oh, no. Not the silly “gods fine tuned the universe”, claim. What the hyper-religious are not able to admit is that the methods of science have a pattern of shedding light into the dark recesses of the fundamentalist agenda that promotes fear and superstition.

The silly “fine tuning” slogan you have stolen from Christian extremist websites is nonsense. Here again, this slogan, like so many others, has been shown to be a farce. Yet you continually cut and paste these silly slogans because of your inability to offer any coherent explanation for the natural world.

As we see with regularity, explaining to you some fairly simple concepts leaves you befuddled. You just repeat the same silly slogans as if your ability to learn has been severely stunted. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us live our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment. 

Remember Schumaker-Levy? How about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? These things have been pointed out to you yet you are unable to address these issues. You do nothing more than repeat the same tired and false slogans you cut and paste from fundie websites.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judaeo-Christian beliefs replaced polytheistic beliefs that believed on a god of gaps to explain things they did not understand.  Judaeo-Christian beliefs are literally the diametric opposite of god of gaps beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding, you are wasting your time and everyone elses trying to reason with the patently unreasonable.
> Consider that those who parrot the "god of the gaps" nonsense themselves believe that nothing of the gaps created everything.  Nothing of the gaps defined the extraordinarily fine tuned physical constants which make our lives not  just possible but elegant and beautiful.  Nothing of the gaps, they pretend, created the continuous electromagnetic spectrum, the elegant construction of matter, from only three disparate building blocks.    Try it some time yourself in the garage.  See how many different things you can make from three identical things, with no glue, no nails, no screws.
> 
> While reflecting  on this magnificence last week, I had the epiphany that electrons form not only the external surface of every element, making them solid and strong, but also make possible our computers, our refrigerators and televisions and our brains as they move through not only copper cables, but also along our very nerves and brain cells.  Nothing did this. Nothingdidit.
> 
> Ain't nothin' grand.  Ain't nothin' better than nothin'.  You got dat?
> 
> P.S.  In anticipation of the giggy "gotcha," Who made God?
> 
> If somebody made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?"-  Professor John Lennox, Oxford University  (A Matter of Gravity on YouTube - This should be required watching for all believers in NothingDidIt.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no. Not the silly “gods fine tuned the universe”, claim. What the hyper-religious are not able to admit is that the methods of science have a pattern of shedding light into the dark recesses of the fundamentalist agenda that promotes fear and superstition.
> 
> The silly “fine tuning” slogan you have stolen from Christian extremist websites is nonsense. Here again, this slogan, like so many others, has been shown to be a farce. Yet you continually cut and paste these silly slogans because of your inability to offer any coherent explanation for the natural world.
> 
> As we see with regularity, explaining to you some fairly simple concepts leaves you befuddled. You just repeat the same silly slogans as if your ability to learn has been severely stunted. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us live our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.
> 
> Remember Schumaker-Levy? How about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? These things have been pointed out to you yet you are unable to address these issues. You do nothing more than repeat the same tired and false slogans you cut and paste from fundie websites.
Click to expand...

Actually Hollie Neil DeGrasse Tyson is saying that the universe is a computer program created by a programmer who qualifies as God


Yawn can you present the species that you know were observed speciating yet?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

esalla said:


> Actually Hollie Neil DeGrasse Tyson is saying that the universe is a computer program created by a programmer who qualifies as God


No he isn't. Once again you post a video you never watched and totally misrepresent it.  Freakish troll, begging for attention...


----------



## esalla

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Hollie Neil DeGrasse Tyson is saying that the universe is a computer program created by a programmer who qualifies as God
> 
> 
> 
> No he isn't. Once again you post a video you never watched and totally misrepresent it.  Freakish troll, begging for attention...
Click to expand...

Tyson said that it is hard to argue against the universe being a computer program.  His source is that if this is true then no dark matter is needed to prove the program.

You keep denying what your atheist hero is babbling, actually you are both rather funny


----------



## ReinyDays

esalla said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Hollie Neil DeGrasse Tyson is saying that the universe is a computer program created by a programmer who qualifies as God
> 
> 
> 
> No he isn't. Once again you post a video you never watched and totally misrepresent it.  Freakish troll, begging for attention...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyson said that it is hard to argue against the universe being a computer program.  His source is that if this is true then no dark matter is needed to prove the program.
> 
> You keep denying what your atheist hero is babbling, actually you are both rather funny
Click to expand...


If it's on Larry King LIVE ... then it's an advertisement for a book ... some people have the strangest ideas of what science is ... I should write a book about it ...


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Hollie Neil DeGrasse Tyson is saying that the universe is a computer program created by a programmer who qualifies as God
> 
> 
> 
> No he isn't. Once again you post a video you never watched and totally misrepresent it.  Freakish troll, begging for attention...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyson said that it is hard to argue against the universe being a computer program.  His source is that if this is true then no dark matter is needed to prove the program.
> 
> You keep denying what your atheist hero is babbling, actually you are both rather funny
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's on Larry King LIVE ... then it's an advertisement for a book ... some people have the strangest ideas of what science is ... I should write a book about it ...
Click to expand...

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation


----------



## ReinyDays

esalla said:


> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation



"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...
> 
> Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...
Click to expand...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work.  Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer


----------



## ReinyDays

esalla said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...
> 
> Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work.  Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.
> 
> I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.
> 
> Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer
Click to expand...


HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...

Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer


 He's definitely not in the God or 'fine tuned' shit hole.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Wikipedia

"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:
*"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power.  When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60]. 

In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said, "So, what people are really after is what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I find a word that came closest, it would be 'agnostic' ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[61] *

`

`


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...
> 
> Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work.  Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.
> 
> I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.
> 
> Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...
> 
> Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...
Click to expand...

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?

You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?

You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.

The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.



LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality

Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia





__





						Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





*Wikipedia is not a reliable source*. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should _not_ be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.


Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is *circular sourcing*.
An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).
Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).

To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... _caveat lector_.

Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...
> 
> Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work.  Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.
> 
> I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.
> 
> Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...
> 
> Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
> 
> You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
> 
> You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
> 
> The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality
> 
> Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wikipedia is not a reliable source*. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should _not_ be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
> 
> The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.
> 
> 
> Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
> Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
> Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is *circular sourcing*.
> An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).
> Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.
> 
> It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).
> 
> To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... _caveat lector_.
> 
> Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius
Click to expand...

*You stupid Schmuck.
Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.*
(BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)

*You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again.*
`

`


----------



## ReinyDays

esalla said:


> Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
> You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
> You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
> The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.



The dilation of time comes from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ... though these are interesting questions about General Relativity ... my question is what is wrong with the derivation posted on Wikipedia ... or if you'd like, what is wrong with Special Relativity? ...


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...
> 
> Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work.  Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.
> 
> I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.
> 
> Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...
> 
> Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
> 
> You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
> 
> You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
> 
> The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality
> 
> Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wikipedia is not a reliable source*. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should _not_ be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
> 
> The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.
> 
> 
> Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
> Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
> Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is *circular sourcing*.
> An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).
> Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.
> 
> It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).
> 
> To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... _caveat lector_.
> 
> Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You stupid Schmuck.
> Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.*
> (BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)
> 
> *You are TOO STUPID to debate.
> You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
> YOU LOST.. again.*
> `
Click to expand...

LOL the fact is that only mental 8 year olds use Wikipedia as even Wikipedia says not to use Wikipedia.

Well now you know schmuckypoopoo





__





						Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Yawning

People like you who know exactly where the universe came from are rather amusing.................... In a silly way naturally


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
> You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
> You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
> The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dilation of time comes from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ... though these are interesting questions about General Relativity ... my question is what is wrong with the derivation posted on Wikipedia ... or if you'd like, what is wrong with Special Relativity? ...
Click to expand...

Funny how my stocks are splitting and at an all time high and I have brokers calling me, and you want me to distract myself from what is really important to idolize a dopey fool who never learned to use a comb or get a gentleman's haircut. 

I do not idolize hairy for several reasons.

1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding.  (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough

And again my Apple shares are quadrupling

How about yours genius


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> LOL the fact is that only mental 8 year olds use Wikipedia as even Wikipedia says not to use Wikipedia.
> 
> Well now you know schmuckypoopoo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawning
> 
> People like you who know exactly where the universe came from are rather amusing.................... In a silly way naturally


*You STUPID Little Twerp.
You think Wiki is going to lie about an attributed and footnoted quote?
And it is easily checked by anyone with a 3 digit IQ
but NOT You. 
ie,  
Hundreds of links for quote.

"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence." - Google Search *

AGAIN, Tyson.
​"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:​*"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60].*​​*In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said, "So, what people are really after is what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I find a word that came closest, it would be 'agnostic' ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[61]*​

You not only got gutted by the quote, but by your own STUPIDITY in not acknowledging it or being able to find or refute it.
You are a STOOOOOOOOOPID obnoxious little DOPE.
Too Stooopid to debate.
So I just hold you up for Ridicule you worthless piece of shlt.

`


----------



## ReinyDays

esalla said:


> 1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding.  (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
> 2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
> 3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
> 4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough
> 
> And again my Apple shares are quadrupling
> 
> How about yours genius



Here's the math ... tell me what's wrong






What you haven't demonstrated is why the speed of of light is constant no matter our own velocity ... and in all directions ... this is what we observe, how do you explain this? ... or do you agree these equations agree with everything we see in the universe ... this has nothing to do with gravity ... you can lay off the rhetoric ...

I'm shy with equities with my ancient of years ... my mortgages would do me better in default ... risk management ... I'm glad The Donald's policies have been so good to you ... they've been good for my mortgagees ...


----------



## ReinyDays

abu afak said:


> *You STUPID Little Twerp.
> You think Wiki is going to lie about an attributed and footnoted quote?
> And it is easily checked by anyone with a 3 digit IQ
> but NOT You.
> ie,
> Hundreds of links for quote.
> 
> "Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence." - Google Search *
> 
> AGAIN, Tyson.
> ​"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:​*"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60].*​​*In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said, "So, what people are really after is what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I find a word that came closest, it would be 'agnostic' ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[61]*​
> 
> You not only got gutted by the quote, but by your own STUPIDITY in not acknowledging it or being able to find or refute it.
> You are a STOOOOOOOOOPID obnoxious little DOPE.
> Too Stooopid to debate.
> So I just hold you up for Ridicule you worthless piece of shlt.
> 
> `



Be nice ... he gets his science information from commercial advertising ... 

He may not understand algebra ...


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding.  (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
> 2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
> 3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
> 4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough
> 
> And again my Apple shares are quadrupling
> 
> How about yours genius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the math ... tell me what's wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you haven't demonstrated is why the speed of of light is constant no matter our own velocity ... and in all directions ... this is what we observe, how do you explain this? ... or do you agree these equations agree with everything we see in the universe ... this has nothing to do with gravity ... you can lay off the rhetoric ...
> 
> I'm shy with equities with my ancient of years ... my mortgages would do me better in default ... risk management ... I'm glad The Donald's policies have been so good to you ... they've been good for my mortgagees ...
Click to expand...

LOL your argument with the speed of light not being the universal speed limit is with NASA not me.  Your problem is that you accept what you are told like a zombie









						This Energy Beam may be travelling faster than Light
					

The Messier 87 galaxy is pulling off the magic trick of the century - a jet of plasma (or energy) moving at almost five times the speed of the light.




					www.yaabot.com
				




Oh and by the way NASA doesn't give 2 shits about what hairy said was not possible and neither do I









						NASA Actually Working on Faster-than-Light Warp Drive | TIME.com
					

A physicist at NASA says he's working on a warp drive that could enable faster-than-light travel -- isn't that impossible?



					techland.time.com
				





By placing a spheroid object between two regions of space-time — one expanding, the other contracting — Alcubierre theorized you could create a “warp bubble” that moves space-time_ around_ the object, effectively re-positioning it. In essence, you’d have the end result of faster-than-light travel without the object itself having to move (with respect to its local frame of reference) at light-speed or faster.

The only catch: Alcubierre says that, “just as happens with wormholes,” you’d need “exotic matter” (matter with “strange properties”) to distort space-time. And the amount of energy necessary to power _that_ would be on par with — wait for it — the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter.

So we’re back to “fuhgeddaboudit,” right?

Maybe not. According to NASA physicist Harold White, the energy problem may actually be surmountable by simply tweaking the warp drive’s geometry.

White, who just shared his latest ideas at the 100 Year Starship 2012 Public Symposium, says that if you adjust the shape of the ring surrounding the object, from something that looks like a flat halo into something thicker and curvier, you could power Alcubierre’s warp drive with a mass roughly the size of NASA’s Voyager 1 probe.

In other words: reduction in energy requirements from a planet with a mass equivalent to over 300 Earths, down to an object that weighs just under 1,600 pounds.

What’s more, if you oscillate the space warp, White claims you could reduce the energy load even further.

“The findings I presented today change [Alcubierre’s warp drive] from impractical to plausible and worth further investigation,” White told SPACE.com. “The additional energy reduction realized by oscillating the bubble intensity is an interesting conjecture that we will enjoy looking at in the lab.”

That’s right, an actual lab experiment, whereby White says he plans to simulate the tweaked Alcubierre drive in miniature, using lasers “to perturb space-time by one part in 10 million.”

And if it works? Don’t expect to go Alpha Centauri-hopping any time soon, but the idea well down the road, according to a presentation delivered by White on the subject last year, would involve a spacecraft leaving Earth, traveling a given distance using conventional propulsion, stopping (relative to the Earth), enabling its “warp field,” then traveling to a point near its interstellar destination, where it would then disable the field and continue on its way using conventional propulsion methods once more.

We stay we perish, we explore we live


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL the fact is that only mental 8 year olds use Wikipedia as even Wikipedia says not to use Wikipedia.
> 
> Well now you know schmuckypoopoo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawning
> 
> People like you who know exactly where the universe came from are rather amusing.................... In a silly way naturally
> 
> 
> 
> *You STUPID Little Twerp.
> You think Wiki is going to lie about an attributed and footnoted quote?
> And it is easily checked by anyone with a 3 digit IQ
> but NOT You.
> ie,
> Hundreds of links for quote.
> 
> "Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence." - Google Search *
> 
> AGAIN, Tyson.
> ​"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:​*"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60].*​​*In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said, "So, what people are really after is what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I find a word that came closest, it would be 'agnostic' ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[61]*​
> 
> You not only got gutted by the quote, but by your own STUPIDITY in not acknowledging it or being able to find or refute it.
> You are a STOOOOOOOOOPID obnoxious little DOPE.
> Too Stooopid to debate.
> So I just hold you up for Ridicule you worthless piece of shlt.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

It's OK, I do not care if you need to get your info from Wikipedia, lots of low IQ people do that in fact


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding.  (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
> 2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
> 3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
> 4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough
> 
> And again my Apple shares are quadrupling
> 
> How about yours genius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the math ... tell me what's wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you haven't demonstrated is why the speed of of light is constant no matter our own velocity ... and in all directions ... this is what we observe, how do you explain this? ... or do you agree these equations agree with everything we see in the universe ... this has nothing to do with gravity ... you can lay off the rhetoric ...
> 
> I'm shy with equities with my ancient of years ... my mortgages would do me better in default ... risk management ... I'm glad The Donald's policies have been so good to you ... they've been good for my mortgagees ...
Click to expand...

LOL I can copy and paste an image of the Lorentz equations just as easily as you kiddy. 






Hawking babbled that nothing can escape a black hole, until he was proved wrong and had to apologize after selling god knows how many books to moron zombies

However at least Hawking had an excuse not to comb his hair


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding.  (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
> 2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
> 3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
> 4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough
> 
> And again my Apple shares are quadrupling
> 
> How about yours genius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the math ... tell me what's wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you haven't demonstrated is why the speed of of light is constant no matter our own velocity ... and in all directions ... this is what we observe, how do you explain this? ... or do you agree these equations agree with everything we see in the universe ... this has nothing to do with gravity ... you can lay off the rhetoric ...
> 
> I'm shy with equities with my ancient of years ... my mortgages would do me better in default ... risk management ... I'm glad The Donald's policies have been so good to you ... they've been good for my mortgagees ...
Click to expand...


Now see if you can determine why what is below is nonsense?


----------



## ReinyDays

esalla said:


> LOL I can copy and paste an image of the Lorentz equations just as easily as you kiddy.



I asked you what is wrong with them, or do you agree they correctly explain why the speed of light is constant regardless of our velocity ...

Extra credit ... do you see the problems when v > c ? ...


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I can copy and paste an image of the Lorentz equations just as easily as you kiddy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what is wrong with them, or do you agree they correctly explain why the speed of light is constant regardless of our velocity ...
> 
> Extra credit ... do you see the problems when v > c ? ...
Click to expand...

Again you are either a mental 8 year old who might be gainfully employed by the government as a zombie agent, or you are an unemployed Harvard grad who was busing tables at the local chain restaurant, or just a typical schizzo suffering from delusions of grandeur who in spite of all their physical knowledge of the universe still never got around to playing the stock market.

At one point it was said that the speed of sound could not be exceeded because the plane began shaking, then this was figured out as the US Navy now tries to follow something at or over Mach 10 again supposedly making right angle terms violating known gravitational physics.

Again the reason that Tyson says the universe may not be real is because the current physics connected to scary hairy needs 85 percent more matter and energy for the currently observed universal expansion to be happening, thus the mythical fairytale term dark matter was invented out of nothing to fill the void.  So when NASA is observing galaxies moving faster than light and the universe is observed moving faster than light and no engineer can locate the missing 85 percent of the universe needed to fuel gravitationally fueled expansion hairy falls flat on his hair knots.

Now that explained can you determine why this equation is nunsense, you probably can not even though I have answered and the answer is spelled out in English


----------



## ReinyDays

Do you agree or not? ... and if you disagree, please state what is correct ... pseudo forces don't count ...


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> Do you agree or not? ... and if you disagree, please state what is correct ... pseudo forces don't count ...


Do you agree that accelerating universal expansion can not be equated using any known math? Do to the lack of mass creating gravity and energy

If you do and can complete this new equation you should really publish your work and collect your nobel prize instead of spending your time on internet boards copy and pasting images of equations that you know nothing about


----------



## ReinyDays

ReinyDays said:


> Do you agree or not? ... and if you disagree, please state what is correct ... pseudo forces don't count ...



Do you agree or not? ...and if you disagree, please state what is correct ... 

For extra credit ... what happens when v > c? ...


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree or not? ... and if you disagree, please state what is correct ... pseudo forces don't count ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree or not? ...and if you disagree, please state what is correct ...
> 
> For extra credit ... what happens when v > c? ...
Click to expand...

Do you ask yourself questions often and more important how often do you get answers?

Lol post another picture of an equation and pretend you wrote it.

Bye the way jr. I am not required to answer to you so take your meds


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> "...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:
> *"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60]. *



I have to say Tyson is correct.  What are a few examples of how he came to the conclusion the universe wants to kill us?  Are those from how other solar systems are aligned?  How other planets are much different from Earth?  The solar wind?  All of the above and more?

I doubt you can provide a _few simple answers_ abu afak because you do not have a clue.

Where Tyson goes wrong is due to his faith in atheism and that is equating God with beneficence or benevolence.  Jesus will be the God of Vengeance when he returns and there will be final judgement.  Look what happened to him during his first visit.  Tyson just thinks there is nothing wrong with his beliefs because he believes in Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  He started with faith in no God or gods and this is where his search has taken him.  It is a search and journey based on lies.

I was just pointing what are the Adamic and Edemic covenants that Adam and Eve brought upon themselves and humankind.  It clearly answers what Tyson asks, but he has no clue.  For those who believe in the science of atheism, death is the answer or to be living during the end of times.

"Let's look over what was Adamic:

Mankind (male and female) was created in God’s image.
Mankind’s dominion is over the animal kingdom.
Divine directive for mankind was to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth.
Mankind was to be vegetarian (eating of meat established in the Noahic covenant: Genesis 9:3).
Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden and would entail the death penalty.  (The death penalty is from God.   After all, you don't really die, i.e. life spirit; Just your physical body dies to be reunited again during the end times.  Furthermore, look who's against God -- Satan's people who are against the death penalty.)

Then we had what was Adamic and Edemic after their original sin:

Enmity between Satan and Eve and her descendants.
Painful childbirth for women.
Marital strife.
The soil cursed.
Introduction of thorns and thistles.
Survival to be a struggle.
Death introduced.
Death will be the inescapable fate of all living things."


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...
> 
> Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work.  Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.
> 
> I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.
> 
> Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...
> 
> Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
> 
> You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
> 
> You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
> 
> The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality
> 
> Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wikipedia is not a reliable source*. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should _not_ be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
> 
> The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.
> 
> 
> Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
> Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
> Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is *circular sourcing*.
> An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).
> Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.
> 
> It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).
> 
> To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... _caveat lector_.
> 
> Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You stupid Schmuck.
> Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.*
> (BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)
> 
> *You are TOO STUPID to debate.
> You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
> YOU LOST.. again.*
> `
> 
> `
Click to expand...


What an idiot you are haha.  You could not win a debate with a plastic bag.  Wiki admitted it is not a reliable source.  What you are claiming are the sources are reliable, but not the content.  The sources could be changed at any time, too.

Let's look at some of their own sources:





__





						Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








__





						Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








__





						Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








__





						Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Anyway, those who use wikipedia as their go to encyclopedia could be doomed to what you claimed, i.e. describing yourself:

"*You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again."*

Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:
> *"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60]. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say Tyson is correct.  What are a few examples of how he came to the conclusion the universe wants to kill us?  Are those from how other solar systems are aligned?  How other planets are much different from Earth?  The solar wind?  All of the above and more?
> 
> I doubt you can provide a _few simple answers_ abu afak because you do not have a clue.
> 
> Where Tyson goes wrong is due to his faith in atheism and that is equating God with beneficence or benevolence.  Jesus will be the God of Vengeance when he returns and there will be final judgement.  Look what happened to him during his first visit.  Tyson just thinks there is nothing wrong with his beliefs because he believes in Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  He started with faith in no God or gods and this is where his search has taken him.  It is a search and journey based on lies.
> 
> I was just pointing what are the Adamic and Edemic covenants that Adam and Eve brought upon themselves and humankind.  It clearly answers what Tyson asks, but he has no clue.  For those who believe in the science of atheism, death is the answer or to be living during the end of times.
> 
> "Let's look over what was Adamic:
> 
> Mankind (male and female) was created in God’s image.
> Mankind’s dominion is over the animal kingdom.
> Divine directive for mankind was to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth.
> Mankind was to be vegetarian (eating of meat established in the Noahic covenant: Genesis 9:3).
> Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden and would entail the death penalty.  (The death penalty is from God.   After all, you don't really die, i.e. life spirit; Just your physical body dies to be reunited again during the end times.  Furthermore, look who's against God -- Satan's people who are against the death penalty.)
> 
> Then we had what was Adamic and Edemic after their original sin:
> 
> Enmity between Satan and Eve and her descendants.
> Painful childbirth for women.
> Marital strife.
> The soil cursed.
> Introduction of thorns and thistles.
> Survival to be a struggle.
> Death introduced.
> Death will be the inescapable fate of all living things."
Click to expand...

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God



Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> "*You are TOO STUPID to debate.
> You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
> YOU LOST.. again."*
> 
> Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.



Bond you are too good for this rathole and you waste much time responding to the many rats which infest it.  Please, give the rest of us a break.  Don't feed the trolls.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
Click to expand...

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
Click to expand...

Maybe he just doesn't have faith in your gods.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...
> 
> Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work.  Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.
> 
> I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.
> 
> Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...
> 
> Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
> 
> You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
> 
> You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
> 
> The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality
> 
> Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wikipedia is not a reliable source*. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should _not_ be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
> 
> The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.
> 
> 
> Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
> Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
> Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is *circular sourcing*.
> An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).
> Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.
> 
> It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).
> 
> To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... _caveat lector_.
> 
> Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You stupid Schmuck.
> Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.*
> (BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)
> 
> *You are TOO STUPID to debate.
> You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
> YOU LOST.. again.*
> `
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an idiot you are haha.  You could not win a debate with a plastic bag.  Wiki admitted it is not a reliable source.  What you are claiming are the sources are reliable, but not the content.  The sources could be changed at any time, too.
> 
> Let's look at some of their own sources:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, those who use wikipedia as their go to encyclopedia could be doomed to what you claimed, i.e. describing yourself:
> 
> "*You are TOO STUPID to debate.
> You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
> YOU LOST.. again."*
> 
> Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.
Click to expand...

"*You are TOO STUPID to debate."*


Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.


----------



## ReinyDays

esalla said:


> Do you ask yourself questions often and more important how often do you get answers?
> Lol post another picture of an equation and pretend you wrote it.
> Bye the way jr. I am not required to answer to you so take your meds



Thank you for your answers ...


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...
> 
> Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work.  Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.
> 
> I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.
> 
> Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...
> 
> Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
> 
> You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
> 
> You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
> 
> The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality
> 
> Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wikipedia is not a reliable source*. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should _not_ be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
> 
> The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.
> 
> 
> Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
> Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
> Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is *circular sourcing*.
> An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).
> Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.
> 
> It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).
> 
> To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... _caveat lector_.
> 
> Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You stupid Schmuck.
> Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.*
> (BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)
> 
> *You are TOO STUPID to debate.
> You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
> YOU LOST.. again.*
> `
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an idiot you are haha.  You could not win a debate with a plastic bag.  Wiki admitted it is not a reliable source.  What you are claiming are the sources are reliable, but not the content.  The sources could be changed at any time, too.
> 
> Let's look at some of their own sources:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, those who use wikipedia as their go to encyclopedia could be doomed to what you claimed, i.e. describing yourself:
> 
> "*You are TOO STUPID to debate.
> You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
> YOU LOST.. again."*
> 
> Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.
Click to expand...

Perfect JamesBlond.
Except According to eatsalad none of your 4 wiki citations are credible. Ooops. 

And Chem Engineer is right. ((WTF!)
You're too good (DUMB) for this place
Go back to Church or theology school.
*AS I SAID, you and the other GOD CULTISTS can't show us any evidence of god. (except saying "this rock/everything is god")
There' really no place for you on a message board, only a pew or other Jim Jones like 7/11 Adventist group.*
`


`


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...
> 
> Typically, these books _cannot_ be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work.  Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.
> 
> I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.
> 
> Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...
> 
> Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
> 
> You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
> 
> You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
> 
> The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality
> 
> Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wikipedia is not a reliable source*. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should _not_ be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
> 
> The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.
> 
> 
> Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
> Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
> Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is *circular sourcing*.
> An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).
> Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.
> 
> It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).
> 
> To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... _caveat lector_.
> 
> Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You stupid Schmuck.
> Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.*
> (BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)
> 
> *You are TOO STUPID to debate.
> You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
> YOU LOST.. again.*
> `
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an idiot you are haha.  You could not win a debate with a plastic bag.  Wiki admitted it is not a reliable source.  What you are claiming are the sources are reliable, but not the content.  The sources could be changed at any time, too.
> 
> Let's look at some of their own sources:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, those who use wikipedia as their go to encyclopedia could be doomed to what you claimed, i.e. describing yourself:
> 
> "*You are TOO STUPID to debate.
> You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
> YOU LOST.. again."*
> 
> Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect JamesBlond.
> Except According to eatsalad none of your 4 wiki citations are credible. Ooops.
> 
> And Chem Engineer is right. ((WTF!)
> You're too good (DUMB) for this place
> Go back to Church or theology school.
> *AS I SAID, you and the other GOD CULTISTS can't show us any evidence of god. (except saying "this rock/everything is god")
> There' really no place for you on a message board, only a pew or other Jim Jones like 7/11 Adventist group.*
> `
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Tell Allah, he might care, no one here does


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
Click to expand...


Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Perfect JamesBlond.
> Except According to eatsalad none of your 4 wiki citations are credible. Ooops.
> 
> And Chem Engineer is right. ((WTF!)
> You're too good (DUMB) for this place
> Go back to Church or theology school.
> *AS I SAID, you and the other GOD CULTISTS can't show us any evidence of god. (except saying "this rock/everything is god")
> There' really no place for you on a message board, only a pew or other Jim Jones like 7/11 Adventist group.*



I gave you the FACT that the universe, Earth (Anthropic Principle), and everything in it is here.  God is the best theory with the Bible and science backing up the Bible.  Furthermore, what I am discussing is not religion, but creation science, i.e. Book of Genesis.  Yours is the science of atheism -- evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I gave you the FACT that the universe, Earth (Anthropic Principle), and everything in it is here.


That's not an argument, ya dummy. That's you stating what makes you feel so tingly and makes you accept belief in fake sky daddies.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he just doesn't have faith in your gods.
Click to expand...


Then he's _wrong_ as science does not back him up.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the FACT that the universe, Earth (Anthropic Principle), and everything in it is here.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an argument, ya dummy. That's you stating what makes you feel so tingly and makes you accept belief in fake sky daddies.
Click to expand...


Sure, it is.  Do you want me to post the 7 days of creation chart again?  It isn't "fake sky daddies" because science backs it up.  Dr. Louis Pasteur showed how abiogenesis cannot happen and only life begets life using the scientific method.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
Click to expand...

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
Click to expand...

No you do not think that, you nauseating, attention begging sock troll.


----------



## esalla

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you do not think that, you nauseating, attention begging sock troll.
Click to expand...

How do you know what I think?

Can you tell me what I am thinking now?

Did you know Apple split 1 into 4 shares today?

Yawn


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
Click to expand...


God in a backhanded way = Satan


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> nauseating, attention begging sock troll



Talking about yourself and your theories again haha.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
Click to expand...

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
Click to expand...


It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that when you get on your knees and pray that god hears you?


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that when you get on your knees and pray that god hears you?
Click to expand...


Not god, but the one true God.  Most of the time it's the Holy Spirit.  God the Father may hear me, but not answer my prayer wishes using his infinite wisdom.  However, I get my wishes answered more times than not.  If something is important to me and it is not answered, then I discuss with the pastor.  Something could be wrong with my thinking.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that when you get on your knees and pray that god hears you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not god, but the one true God.  Most of the time it's the Holy Spirit.  God the Father may hear me, but not answer my prayer wishes using his infinite wisdom.  However, I get my wishes answered more times than not.  If something is important to me and it is not answered, then I discuss with the pastor.  Something could be wrong with my thinking.
Click to expand...

You avoided the question. Do you believe that god hears you when you pray?

Not god but the one true god..  what does that mean


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that when you get on your knees and pray that god hears you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not god, but the one true God.  Most of the time it's the Holy Spirit.  God the Father may hear me, but not answer my prayer wishes using his infinite wisdom.  However, I get my wishes answered more times than not.  If something is important to me and it is not answered, then I discuss with the pastor.  Something could be wrong with my thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You avoided the question. Do you believe that god hears you when you pray?
> 
> Not god but the one true god..  what does that mean
Click to expand...


There is no god nor gods.  Only one God of the Holy Trinity.

I did answer, but you did not comprehend.  I said most of the time it's the Holy Spirt who hears you when you pray.  Jesus hears me.  God the Father hears me.  Three in one God.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that when you get on your knees and pray that god hears you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not god, but the one true God.  Most of the time it's the Holy Spirit.  God the Father may hear me, but not answer my prayer wishes using his infinite wisdom.  However, I get my wishes answered more times than not.  If something is important to me and it is not answered, then I discuss with the pastor.  Something could be wrong with my thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You avoided the question. Do you believe that god hears you when you pray?
> 
> Not god but the one true god..  what does that mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no god nor gods.  Only one God of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> I did answer, but you did not comprehend.  I said most of the time it's the Holy Spirt who hears you when you pray.  Jesus hears me.  God the Father hears me.  Three in one God.
Click to expand...

How can there be no god, and only one god of the holy trinity?

You still refuse to answer if the god you believe in hears you when you pray.


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that when you get on your knees and pray that god hears you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not god, but the one true God.  Most of the time it's the Holy Spirit.  God the Father may hear me, but not answer my prayer wishes using his infinite wisdom.  However, I get my wishes answered more times than not.  If something is important to me and it is not answered, then I discuss with the pastor.  Something could be wrong with my thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You avoided the question. Do you believe that god hears you when you pray?
> 
> Not god but the one true god..  what does that mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no god nor gods.  Only one God of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> I did answer, but you did not comprehend.  I said most of the time it's the Holy Spirt who hears you when you pray.  Jesus hears me.  God the Father hears me.  Three in one God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can there be no god, and only one god of the holy trinity?
> 
> You still refuse to answer if the god you believe in hears you when you pray.
Click to expand...


This is S&T haha.  I'm moving on.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that when you get on your knees and pray that god hears you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not god, but the one true God.  Most of the time it's the Holy Spirit.  God the Father may hear me, but not answer my prayer wishes using his infinite wisdom.  However, I get my wishes answered more times than not.  If something is important to me and it is not answered, then I discuss with the pastor.  Something could be wrong with my thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You avoided the question. Do you believe that god hears you when you pray?
> 
> Not god but the one true god..  what does that mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no god nor gods.  Only one God of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> I did answer, but you did not comprehend.  I said most of the time it's the Holy Spirt who hears you when you pray.  Jesus hears me.  God the Father hears me.  Three in one God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can there be no god, and only one god of the holy trinity?
> 
> You still refuse to answer if the god you believe in hears you when you pray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T haha.  I'm moving on.
Click to expand...

Does the god of the holy trinity hear you when you pray?

Why are you evasive if you believe?


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that when you get on your knees and pray that god hears you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not god, but the one true God.  Most of the time it's the Holy Spirit.  God the Father may hear me, but not answer my prayer wishes using his infinite wisdom.  However, I get my wishes answered more times than not.  If something is important to me and it is not answered, then I discuss with the pastor.  Something could be wrong with my thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You avoided the question. Do you believe that god hears you when you pray?
> 
> Not god but the one true god..  what does that mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no god nor gods.  Only one God of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> I did answer, but you did not comprehend.  I said most of the time it's the Holy Spirt who hears you when you pray.  Jesus hears me.  God the Father hears me.  Three in one God.
Click to expand...

How come the holy spirit hears your prayers and not god


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that when you get on your knees and pray that god hears you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not god, but the one true God.  Most of the time it's the Holy Spirit.  God the Father may hear me, but not answer my prayer wishes using his infinite wisdom.  However, I get my wishes answered more times than not.  If something is important to me and it is not answered, then I discuss with the pastor.  Something could be wrong with my thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You avoided the question. Do you believe that god hears you when you pray?
> 
> Not god but the one true god..  what does that mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no god nor gods.  Only one God of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> I did answer, but you did not comprehend.  I said most of the time it's the Holy Spirt who hears you when you pray.  Jesus hears me.  God the Father hears me.  Three in one God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can there be no god, and only one god of the holy trinity?
> 
> You still refuse to answer if the god you believe in hears you when you pray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T haha.  I'm moving on.
Click to expand...

You are not moving on. You are hiding from the truth


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
Click to expand...

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
Click to expand...

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
Click to expand...


This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
Click to expand...

So does the one true god hear you when you pray and if the holy spirit hears you most of the time as you said why is this


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
Click to expand...

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Click to expand...

James has his opinion and you have yours, neither of you have a brain


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence


*Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`*


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence
> 
> 
> 
> *Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
> Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
> However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.*
Click to expand...

Darwin wrote that the pond created life in his hooker letter.  However we know now that life is dna which can not evolve before existing.

Lol does mohammed still hear those voices


----------



## Hollie

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence
> 
> 
> 
> *Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
> Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
> However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.
> 
> `*
Click to expand...

The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote. 

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence
> 
> 
> 
> *Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
> Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
> However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.
> 
> `*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> 
> The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.
Click to expand...

If darwin saw the complexity of simple dna he would not have said that it wrote itself


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Click to expand...


Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence
> 
> 
> 
> *Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
> Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
> However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.
> 
> `*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> 
> The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.
Click to expand...


This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism.  The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.

Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.

"* Marshall’s Premise*

Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident.   Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.”   Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that *the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.*


Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated.  All those innumerable attempts have failed.


Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “*easily combine* to make startlingly lifelike protocells”.  That belief glosses over *the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.”*  There are some *startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries*—but they *aren’t alive.*  Furthermore, “easily” is questionable.  Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine?  *If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"*


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence
> 
> 
> 
> *Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
> Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
> However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.
> 
> `*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> 
> The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism.  The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.
> 
> Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.
> 
> "* Marshall’s Premise*
> 
> Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident.   Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.”   Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that *the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.*
> 
> 
> Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated.  All those innumerable attempts have failed.
> 
> 
> Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “*easily combine* to make startlingly lifelike protocells”.  That belief glosses over *the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.”*  There are some *startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries*—but they *aren’t alive.*  Furthermore, “easily” is questionable.  Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine?  *If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"*
Click to expand...

So you are posting an artic;e that life can arise in a chemical bang.. abiogenesis.. without god.

Of course not fully formed life or we'd have a fossil record of that billion+ years that doesn't basically go simple to complex over time.

You Porked yourself you Dishonest asshole.

`


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
Click to expand...

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries. 

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence
> 
> 
> 
> *Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
> Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
> However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.
> 
> `*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> 
> The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism.  The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.
> 
> Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.
> 
> "* Marshall’s Premise*
> 
> Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident.   Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.”   Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that *the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.*
> 
> 
> Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated.  All those innumerable attempts have failed.
> 
> 
> Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “*easily combine* to make startlingly lifelike protocells”.  That belief glosses over *the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.”*  There are some *startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries*—but they *aren’t alive.*  Furthermore, “easily” is questionable.  Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine?  *If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"*
Click to expand...

Yet, no appeals to any gawds.

You're confusing terms. If you're going to use the Behe ''irreducibly complex'' meme, be brave, be very brave and acknowledge the source of your silly slogans.



			CB200:  Irreducible complexity
		

*Claim CB200:*
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.*Source:*
Behe, Michael J. 1996. _Darwin's Black Box_, New York: The Free Press.

*Response:*

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.


Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.


Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.


Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
Click to expand...

God is not supernatural, nor is God spirit God was and likely still is more advanced than we are.  Humans do things today that in Jesus time would be equated as being God.

So does God hear you when you pray Mr. Bond


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence
> 
> 
> 
> *Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
> Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
> However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.
> 
> `*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> 
> The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism.  The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.
> 
> Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.
> 
> "* Marshall’s Premise*
> 
> Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident.   Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.”   Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that *the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.*
> 
> 
> Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated.  All those innumerable attempts have failed.
> 
> 
> Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “*easily combine* to make startlingly lifelike protocells”.  That belief glosses over *the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.”*  There are some *startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries*—but they *aren’t alive.*  Furthermore, “easily” is questionable.  Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine?  *If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, no appeals to any gawds.
> 
> You're confusing terms. If you're going to use the Behe ''irreducibly complex'' meme, be brave, be very brave and acknowledge the source of your silly slogans.
> 
> 
> 
> CB200:  Irreducible complexity
> 
> 
> *Claim CB200:*
> Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.*Source:*
> Behe, Michael J. 1996. _Darwin's Black Box_, New York: The Free Press.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
> deletion of parts
> addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
> change of function
> addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
> gradual modification of parts
> 
> All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).
> 
> Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.
> 
> 
> Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
> 
> 
> Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.
> 
> 
> Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
> The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
> The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
> In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
> The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.
Click to expand...

Hollie you are a triggered fool


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence
> 
> 
> 
> *Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
> Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
> However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.
> 
> `*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> 
> The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism.  The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.
> 
> Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.
> 
> "* Marshall’s Premise*
> 
> Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident.   Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.”   Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that *the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.*
> 
> 
> Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated.  All those innumerable attempts have failed.
> 
> 
> Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “*easily combine* to make startlingly lifelike protocells”.  That belief glosses over *the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.”*  There are some *startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries*—but they *aren’t alive.*  Furthermore, “easily” is questionable.  Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine?  *If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are posting an artic;e that life can arise in a chemical bang.. abiogenesis.. without god.
> 
> Of course not fully formed life or we'd have a fossil record of that billion+ years that doesn't basically go simple to complex over time.
> 
> You Porked yourself you Dishonest asshole.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


No, I'm posting because it's _easy money_.  

Now, you guys believe that the chemical bang happened given billions of years.  Maybe it's based on food as people make sourdough bread from microorganisms.  Other, more complex foods can be made from microorganism.  Yet, it doesn't happen unless you find the first Eve microorganism and the baker, cheese, beer or wine maker.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
Click to expand...


More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.






Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
Click to expand...


It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with ID.  The term can be applied to it when the _latest_ the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike _protocell_.  Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one.  An actual living one.  Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me.  I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell."  It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult.  What God did was create fully adult plants and animals.  And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with ID.  The term can be applied to it when the _latest_ the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike _protocell_.  Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one.  An actual living one.  Not a lifelike model of one.
> 
> This is easy money for me.  I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell."  It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult.  What God did was create fully adult plants and animals.  And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
Click to expand...

Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.

Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.

It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with ID.  The term can be applied to it when the _latest_ the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike _protocell_.  Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one.  An actual living one.  Not a lifelike model of one.
> 
> This is easy money for me.  I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell."  It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult.  What God did was create fully adult plants and animals.  And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.
> 
> Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
> 
> It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
Click to expand...


You're not getting this at all.  God created Adam first and then Eve.  Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world.  One can't do it with asexual reproduction.  We're all adults here.  Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism.  The queen.  With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection.  Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world.  That can happen.  What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.

It's a _radical_ theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence
> 
> 
> 
> *Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
> Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
> However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.
> 
> `*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> 
> The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism.  The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.
> 
> Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.
> 
> "* Marshall’s Premise*
> 
> Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident.   Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.”   Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that *the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.*
> 
> 
> Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated.  All those innumerable attempts have failed.
> 
> 
> Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “*easily combine* to make startlingly lifelike protocells”.  That belief glosses over *the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.”*  There are some *startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries*—but they *aren’t alive.*  Furthermore, “easily” is questionable.  Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine?  *If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are posting an artic;e that life can arise in a chemical bang.. abiogenesis.. without god.
> 
> Of course not fully formed life or we'd have a fossil record of that billion+ years that doesn't basically go simple to complex over time.
> 
> You Porked yourself you Dishonest asshole.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm posting because it's _easy money_.
> 
> Now, you guys believe that the chemical bang happened given billions of years.  Maybe it's based on food as people make sourdough bread from microorganisms.  Other, more complex foods can be made from microorganism.  Yet, it doesn't happen unless you find the first Eve microorganism and the baker, cheese, beer or wine maker.
Click to expand...

Who pays you to post here mr bond


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with ID.  The term can be applied to it when the _latest_ the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike _protocell_.  Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one.  An actual living one.  Not a lifelike model of one.
> 
> This is easy money for me.  I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell."  It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult.  What God did was create fully adult plants and animals.  And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.
> 
> Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
> 
> It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not getting this at all.  God created Adam first and then Eve.  Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world.  One can't do it with asexual reproduction.  We're all adults here.  Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism.  The queen.  With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection.  Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world.  That can happen.  What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.
> 
> It's a _radical_ theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.
Click to expand...

If god was so smart how come he totally forgot about adam needing eve in the first place


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with ID.  The term can be applied to it when the _latest_ the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike _protocell_.  Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one.  An actual living one.  Not a lifelike model of one.
> 
> This is easy money for me.  I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell."  It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult.  What God did was create fully adult plants and animals.  And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.
> 
> Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
> 
> It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not getting this at all.  God created Adam first and then Eve.  Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world.  One can't do it with asexual reproduction.  We're all adults here.  Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism.  The queen.  With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection.  Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world.  That can happen.  What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.
> 
> It's a _radical_ theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.
Click to expand...

You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with ID.  The term can be applied to it when the _latest_ the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike _protocell_.  Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one.  An actual living one.  Not a lifelike model of one.
> 
> This is easy money for me.  I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell."  It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult.  What God did was create fully adult plants and animals.  And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.
> 
> Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
> 
> It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not getting this at all.  God created Adam first and then Eve.  Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world.  One can't do it with asexual reproduction.  We're all adults here.  Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism.  The queen.  With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection.  Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world.  That can happen.  What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.
> 
> It's a _radical_ theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.
Click to expand...

Hollie you just do not get it, you offer nothing to show how life supernaturally created itself from nothing in a pond


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> *Hollie you just do not get it, you offer nothing to show how life supernaturally created itself from nothing in a pond*


But you believe in a supernaturally created self bimbo boy!
Supernatural is your world. 
Because you have no hard evidence of anything.
`

`


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with ID.  The term can be applied to it when the _latest_ the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike _protocell_.  Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one.  An actual living one.  Not a lifelike model of one.
> 
> This is easy money for me.  I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell."  It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult.  What God did was create fully adult plants and animals.  And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.
> 
> Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
> 
> It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not getting this at all.  God created Adam first and then Eve.  Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world.  One can't do it with asexual reproduction.  We're all adults here.  Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism.  The queen.  With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection.  Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world.  That can happen.  What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.
> 
> It's a _radical_ theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.
Click to expand...


I am pointing out creation science.  One needs a creator to start life and the universe.  It's only since the 1850s, the science of atheism has take root and we are exposed to its beliefs of no God nor gods, i.e. no creator.  We have as evidence the Bible from God and it is all explained in Genesis and we find science backs up God created fully adult living creatures.  They didn't start from eggs nor babies.  We find that sexual reproduction can't happen then.  Remember the _triangle_ of membrane, metabolism, and reproduction Marshall mentioned? It backs up Genesis better than evolution.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie you just do not get it, you offer nothing to show how life supernaturally created itself from nothing in a pond*
> 
> 
> 
> But you believe in a supernaturally created self bimbo boy!
> Supernatural is your world.
> Because you have no hard evidence of anything.
> `
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Well, you have to have sexual reproduction.  It is an adult microorganism function, is it not?  The first Eve or the queen would rule.  I've watched the Alien franchise and could see it happen.  Also, the metabolism would be hard to do.  Membrane, not so much, but it holds everything together.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with ID.  The term can be applied to it when the _latest_ the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike _protocell_.  Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one.  An actual living one.  Not a lifelike model of one.
> 
> This is easy money for me.  I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell."  It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult.  What God did was create fully adult plants and animals.  And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.
> 
> Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
> 
> It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not getting this at all.  God created Adam first and then Eve.  Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world.  One can't do it with asexual reproduction.  We're all adults here.  Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism.  The queen.  With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection.  Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world.  That can happen.  What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.
> 
> It's a _radical_ theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pointing out creation science.  One needs a creator to start life and the universe.  It's only since the 1850s, the science of atheism has take root and we are exposed to its beliefs of no God nor gods, i.e. no creator.  We have as evidence the Bible from God and it is all explained in Genesis and we find science backs up God created fully adult living creatures.  They didn't start from eggs nor babies.  We find that sexual reproduction can't happen then.  Remember the _triangle_ of membrane, metabolism, and reproduction Marshall mentioned? It backs up Genesis better than evolution.
Click to expand...

Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.  

It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief. 

The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.
> 
> It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.
> 
> The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.



As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus.  He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.

We'll be getting to _your_ kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.


That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring.  It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science.  You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see now.  He's claiming he's agnostic.  My bad, but there really isn't much difference.  He still doesn't have faith in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator.  The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they say?  Then they have a belief in some god.  I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se.  Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God in a backhanded way = Satan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic.  It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God.  Then everything changes.  There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math.  We deal with best theories and the scientific method.  We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory.  Some, like me, think that life is supernatural.  Could the universe be supernatural?  I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter?  How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time?  Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded.  As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal.  Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created.  The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning.  Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it.  The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.
> 
> Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables.  Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
> 
> Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs."  It sounds like a sin .  What do you define as "supernatural?"  We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural.  If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be.  It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural.  You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain.  Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
> 
> I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life.  This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence.  However, it doesn't happen.  Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis.  It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table.  To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of.  It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally.  Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't.  No pwoof.  No feery.  No nawting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More easy money.  I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall doesn't exactly call it _irreducible complexity_ because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with ID.  The term can be applied to it when the _latest_ the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike _protocell_.  Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one.  An actual living one.  Not a lifelike model of one.
> 
> This is easy money for me.  I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell."  It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult.  What God did was create fully adult plants and animals.  And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.
> 
> Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
> 
> It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not getting this at all.  God created Adam first and then Eve.  Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world.  One can't do it with asexual reproduction.  We're all adults here.  Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism.  The queen.  With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection.  Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world.  That can happen.  What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.
> 
> It's a _radical_ theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pointing out creation science.  One needs a creator to start life and the universe.  It's only since the 1850s, the science of atheism has take root and we are exposed to its beliefs of no God nor gods, i.e. no creator.  We have as evidence the Bible from God and it is all explained in Genesis and we find science backs up God created fully adult living creatures.  They didn't start from eggs nor babies.  We find that sexual reproduction can't happen then.  Remember the _triangle_ of membrane, metabolism, and reproduction Marshall mentioned? It backs up Genesis better than evolution.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as creation science............................


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.
> 
> It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.
> 
> The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus.  He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.
> 
> We'll be getting to _your_ kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.
> 
> 
> That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring.  It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science.  You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .
Click to expand...

Actually life was here long before MARY GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS

If you see it differently you are schizophrenic


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.
> 
> It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.
> 
> The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus.  He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.
> 
> We'll be getting to _your_ kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.
> 
> 
> That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring.  It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science.  You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .
Click to expand...

You have tediously reiterated your religious dogma.

It’s curious that your now claim that the Jesus character, (God Jr.?), is the supernatural creator required for life as opposed to God Sr. You do have some interesting notions of Christianity. Kind of like the LEGO version. 

You seem to spend too much time in thrall to Hollywood movies.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.
> 
> It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.
> 
> The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus.  He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.
> 
> We'll be getting to _your_ kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.
> 
> 
> That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring.  It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science.  You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have tediously reiterated your religious dogma.
> 
> It’s curious that your now claim that the Jesus character, (God Jr.?), is the supernatural creator required for life as opposed to God Sr. You do have some interesting notions of Christianity. Kind of like the LEGO version.
> 
> You seem to spend too much time in thrall to Hollywood movies.
Click to expand...


You know nothing about Christianity and the Bible.  God the Father was the architect while Jesus was the creator.  Many people do not know this.  It's a joke that you do not know much about Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  I just pointed out the new hypothesis of the protocell, but you did not know nor could accept it as an easy money presentation for creation science; It supports creation more than evolution.  Unless the protocell is accepted as the new chemical bang, evolution has not moved forward in years since Miller-Urey and that was weak sauce.  It was the best that the science of atheism could do along with the BS big bang.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.
> 
> It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.
> 
> The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus.  He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.
> 
> We'll be getting to _your_ kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.
> 
> 
> That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring.  It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science.  You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have tediously reiterated your religious dogma.
> 
> It’s curious that your now claim that the Jesus character, (God Jr.?), is the supernatural creator required for life as opposed to God Sr. You do have some interesting notions of Christianity. Kind of like the LEGO version.
> 
> You seem to spend too much time in thrall to Hollywood movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know nothing about Christianity and the Bible.  God the Father was the architect while Jesus was the creator.  Many people do not know this.  It's a joke that you do not know much about Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  I just pointed out the new hypothesis of the protocell, but you did not know nor could accept it as an easy money presentation for creation science; It supports creation more than evolution.  Unless the protocell is accepted as the new chemical bang, evolution has not moved forward in years since Miller-Urey and that was weak sauce.  It was the best that the science of atheism could do along with the BS big bang.
Click to expand...

My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.

It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?

I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.
> 
> It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?
> 
> I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.



Your experiences and comments show you know practically nothing as you have not listened nor formulated your own arguments.  Even abu afak knows more about evolution than you.  I would put you on the same level with esalla as he, too, is confused by both science and religion.  He continues to want to discuss religion on S&T forum haha.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.
> 
> It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?
> 
> I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your experiences and comments show you know practically nothing as you have not listened nor formulated your own arguments.  Even abu afak knows more about evolution than you.  I would put you on the same level with esalla as he, too, is confused by both science and religion.  He continues to want to discuss religion on S&T forum haha.
Click to expand...


That was a rather poor attempt to sidestep accountability for your baseless claims.

You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.

So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.
> 
> It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?
> 
> I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your experiences and comments show you know practically nothing as you have not listened nor formulated your own arguments.  Even abu afak knows more about evolution than you.  I would put you on the same level with esalla as he, too, is confused by both science and religion.  He continues to want to discuss religion on S&T forum haha.
Click to expand...

And bond believes that there is no god.  Then he says there is the one true god

Diagnosis schizophrenia


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.
> 
> It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?
> 
> I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your experiences and comments show you know practically nothing as you have not listened nor formulated your own arguments.  Even abu afak knows more about evolution than you.  I would put you on the same level with esalla as he, too, is confused by both science and religion.  He continues to want to discuss religion on S&T forum haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a rather poor attempt to sidestep accountability for your baseless claims.
> 
> You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.
> 
> So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?
Click to expand...

Hollie please explain how dna writing itself in a pond is not supernatural


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.
> 
> So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?



This has been explained to you several times already.  The _life spirit_ itself is supernatural as it continues to live on after death, but is asleep.  We find that the life spirit cannot be created by humans as once it is gone, it is gone.  It also does not occur in natural surroundings.  Only existing life can create other life through reproduction.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.
> 
> So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you several times already.  The _life spirit_ itself is supernatural as it continues to live on after death, but is asleep.  We find that the life spirit cannot be created by humans as once it is gone, it is gone.  It also does not occur in natural surroundings.  Only existing life can create other life through reproduction.
Click to expand...

What is a ''life spirit''? You invent these strange, supernatural entities and then presume that others are to blithely accept you "...because I say so', claims.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.
> 
> So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you several times already.  The _life spirit_ itself is supernatural as it continues to live on after death, but is asleep.  We find that the life spirit cannot be created by humans as once it is gone, it is gone.  It also does not occur in natural surroundings.  Only existing life can create other life through reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is a ''life spirit''? You invent these strange, supernatural entities and then presume that others are to blithely accept you "...because I say so', claims.
Click to expand...


It's not that hard to understand as you experience the life spirit and see others with the life spirit every day.  It is what keeps you alive until your physical body dies.  However, the life spirit goes on.  It won't be on Earth anymore as once you die, then it is usually quickly whisked away to a place for the dead.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.
> 
> So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you several times already.  The _life spirit_ itself is supernatural as it continues to live on after death, but is asleep.  We find that the life spirit cannot be created by humans as once it is gone, it is gone.  It also does not occur in natural surroundings.  Only existing life can create other life through reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is a ''life spirit''? You invent these strange, supernatural entities and then presume that others are to blithely accept you "...because I say so', claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that hard to understand as you experience the life spirit and see others with the life spirit every day.  It is what keeps you alive until your physical body dies.  However, the life spirit goes on.  It won't be on Earth anymore as once you die, then it is usually quickly whisked away to a place for the dead.
Click to expand...


So, yes. You have some notion of something you call a ''life spirit'' but you can't define it in any meaningful way. So this ''life spirit'' of yours is something you have invented and which apparently goes to heaven after you die. Yes, that assuages your fear of death and the unknown and it calms an emotional requirement that you live in fear and self-loathing because you are evil and base and carry original sin.

Good gawd, what a miserable existence.

Faith means different things to different people, and different people have different concepts of gods. The origins of life and of the universe are not determined by anyone's personal decision of what religion to follow. Science, including evolution, is based on *objective* evidence, evidence which is the same for everyone.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> You know nothing about Christianity and the Bible.  God the Father was the architect while Jesus was the creator.  Many people do not know this.  It's a joke that you do not know much about Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  I just pointed out the new hypothesis of the protocell, but you did not know nor could accept it as an easy money presentation for creation science; It supports creation more than evolution.  Unless the protocell is accepted as the new chemical bang, evolution has not moved forward in years since Miller-Urey and that was weak sauce.  It was the best that the science of atheism could do along with the BS big bang.


And unlike not knowing anything about Science, knowing nothing about the Bible will still let you run a Tech or Fortune 500 company instead of the '700 Club.' you dim wit.

`


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *I am pointing out creation science.  *One needs a creator to start life and the universe.  It's only since the 1850s, the science of atheism has take root and we are exposed to its beliefs of no God nor gods, i.e. no creator.  We have as evidence the Bible from God and it is all explained in Genesis and we find science backs up God created fully adult living creatures.  They didn't start from eggs nor babies.  We find that sexual reproduction can't happen then.  Remember the _triangle_ of membrane, metabolism, and reproduction Marshall mentioned? It backs up Genesis better than evolution.


*"Creation Science" is an Oxymoron spouted by the oxygen Starved.*

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> And unlike not knowing anything about Science, knowing nothing about the Bible will still let you run a Tech or Fortune 500 company instead of the '700 Club.' you dim wit.



The knowledge and skills required to run a tech or Fortune 500 company aren't found in the Bible.  However, the Bible explains other things that are important and required in life such as origins, creations, how we got here, how the Earth was formed through catastrophism, in a rapid manner, and how and why the rock and fossil layers were mixed up by a global flood.  It explains why 3/4 of the planet is water.  Yet, the atheists and their atheist scientists will not accept this, but want a globally flooded Mars in the past when it could help them discover life was present in the past.  It is hypocrisy of atheism and the hypocrisy of the science of atheism at its worst.



abu afak said:


> "Creation Science" is an Oxymoron spouted by the oxygen Starved.



One needs creation for the start of the universe and its spacetime.  Oxygen also had to have a start in that environment.  God and creation is the best theory to explain it and we find that kind of creation science backs it up.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> So, yes. You have some notion of something you call a ''life spirit'' but you can't define it in any meaningful way. So this ''life spirit'' of yours is something you have invented and which apparently goes to heaven after you die. Yes, that assuages your fear of death and the unknown and it calms an emotional requirement that you live in fear and self-loathing because you are evil and base and carry original sin.
> 
> Good gawd, what a miserable existence.
> 
> Faith means different things to different people, and different people have different concepts of gods. The origins of life and of the universe are not determined by anyone's personal decision of what religion to follow. Science, including evolution, is based on *objective* evidence, evidence which is the same for everyone.



Life spirit is life itself.  We are all living right now, but our bodies will die due to Adam's sin.  You believe through faith in no God/gods that your life spirit will also die with no physical body.  The Bible says that is not what happens.  You spirit is whisked away immediately to the place of the dead where your spirit and most spirits will be asleep.  Their spirits will be alive, but asleep like you when you go to sleep now.  A few though will be suffering in pain and being burned because they were such evil people when they were living.  Evil, to God, would mean blasphemy and putting false gods before the true God.  Also, it could be due to being rich and not taking care of the poor and less fortunate with your wealth.


----------



## abu afak

So to summarize:
 there is no Evidence of a god, and the only [illogical] deduction for his is..
"well then, how did...."
10,000 years and 10,000 gods with NO Evdience in sight.

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> So to summarize:
> there is no Evidence of a god, and the only [illogical] deduction for his is..
> "well then, how did...."
> 10,000 years and 10,000 gods with NO Evdience in sight.
> 
> `


At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.


Totally false. The expectation of fairness comes from the evolution of empathy.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. The expectation of fairness comes from the evolution of empathy.
Click to expand...

That was already addressed.



ding said:


> You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



When you quarrel you aren't empathizing with the other guy.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. The expectation of fairness comes from the evolution of empathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was already addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you quarrel you aren't empathizing with the other guy.
Click to expand...

14 words in the last post.
You're getting so wordy these day you ONE-LINE TROLL.
Get some content clown.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. The expectation of fairness comes from the evolution of empathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was already addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you quarrel you aren't empathizing with the other guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 14 words in the last post.
> You're getting so wordy these day you ONE-LINE TROLL.
> Get some content clown.
> `
Click to expand...

The content was just fine.  It has not been refuted.


----------



## ding

I only needed ten words there to defeat your argument.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, yes. You have some notion of something you call a ''life spirit'' but you can't define it in any meaningful way. So this ''life spirit'' of yours is something you have invented and which apparently goes to heaven after you die. Yes, that assuages your fear of death and the unknown and it calms an emotional requirement that you live in fear and self-loathing because you are evil and base and carry original sin.
> 
> Good gawd, what a miserable existence.
> 
> Faith means different things to different people, and different people have different concepts of gods. The origins of life and of the universe are not determined by anyone's personal decision of what religion to follow. Science, including evolution, is based on *objective* evidence, evidence which is the same for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life spirit is life itself.  We are all living right now, but our bodies will die due to Adam's sin.  You believe through faith in no God/gods that your life spirit will also die with no physical body.  The Bible says that is not what happens.  You spirit is whisked away immediately to the place of the dead where your spirit and most spirits will be asleep.  Their spirits will be alive, but asleep like you when you go to sleep now.  A few though will be suffering in pain and being burned because they were such evil people when they were living.  Evil, to God, would mean blasphemy and putting false gods before the true God.  Also, it could be due to being rich and not taking care of the poor and less fortunate with your wealth.
Click to expand...

You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.

Your claims to false gods vs. true gods are claims made by others with different gods. I see nothing that separates your claims to gods vs. the claims by others for their gods. Humans have, for much of their tenure on earth, invented various gawds to explain what they didn't understand. Such projections of spirit worlds as delineated by the currently configured gawds are no exception. Specific religions merely evidence cultural bias, a predilection for organization, sanctioned approved behavior, etc. People always get religion wrong because they are fallible humans.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.



What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature?  What's missing?

We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.

I don't think science can explain.  They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death.  Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on _after_ death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.

BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible.  He says we live on after death.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature?  What's missing?
> 
> We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.
> 
> I don't think science can explain.  They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death.  Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on _after_ death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.
> 
> BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible.  He says we live on after death.
Click to expand...

Yes, and people see Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.

BTW, the gods say nothing in the Bibles. None of the gods had anyone take notation.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature?  What's missing?
> 
> We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.
> 
> I don't think science can explain.  They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death.  Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on _after_ death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.
> 
> BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible.  He says we live on after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and people see Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.
> 
> BTW, the gods say nothing in the Bibles. None of the gods had anyone take notation.
Click to expand...


It's the atheist science that denies the existence of God and the afterlife by assumption.  It cannot and will not accept God despite the scientific evidence.  God and the Bible is the best theory to explain it all.  Not the Antibible of evolution.  Thus, the atheists are not saved.  We know bad people and those who deny God's will will be punished.  Our current life is punishment for Adam's sin, so the sinners will continue to be ruled forever in the afterlife as punishment by Satan.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature?  What's missing?
> 
> We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.
> 
> I don't think science can explain.  They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death.  Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on _after_ death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.
> 
> BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible.  He says we live on after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and people see Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.
> 
> BTW, the gods say nothing in the Bibles. None of the gods had anyone take notation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the atheist science that denies the existence of God and the afterlife by assumption.  It cannot and will not accept God despite the scientific evidence.  God and the Bible is the best theory to explain it all.  Not the Antibible of evolution.  Thus, the atheists are not saved.  We know bad people and those who deny God's will will be punished.  Our current life is punishment for Adam's sin, so the sinners will continue to be ruled forever in the afterlife as punishment by Satan.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is the religioner who presumes existence of the gods and some asserted afterlife by assumption. There is no scientific evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods, nor is there any evidence for your asserted afterlife of fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.

Your claims to antibibles, Satans and your willingness to live in fear is a sad existence. You make allusions to ''spirit realms'' you claim exists. How does anyone identify a spirit realm outside of the physical body? I believe you're unnecessarily ascribing your religious based fears and superstitions to matters you don’t understand.

Why would your gods punish those who don’t believe in them? That is is coercive and manipulative. That concept is, of course, what the writers of the Bible have claimed but we largely don’t know who the authors of the Bibles are and none of your gods were ever credited with direct communication of the Bible’s content.

Is there some perverse pleasure that the hyper-religious get from living in abject fear and worse, attempting to terrify children with their fears and superstitions?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature?  What's missing?
> 
> We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.
> 
> I don't think science can explain.  They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death.  Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on _after_ death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.
> 
> BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible.  He says we live on after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and people see Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.
> 
> BTW, the gods say nothing in the Bibles. None of the gods had anyone take notation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the atheist science that denies the existence of God and the afterlife by assumption.  It cannot and will not accept God despite the scientific evidence.  God and the Bible is the best theory to explain it all.  Not the Antibible of evolution.  Thus, the atheists are not saved.  We know bad people and those who deny God's will will be punished.  Our current life is punishment for Adam's sin, so the sinners will continue to be ruled forever in the afterlife as punishment by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it is the religioner who presumes existence of the gods and some asserted afterlife by assumption. There is no scientific evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods, nor is there any evidence for your asserted afterlife of fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.
> 
> Your claims to antibibles, Satans and your willingness to live in fear is a sad existence. You make allusions to ''spirit realms'' you claim exists. How does anyone identify a spirit realm outside of the physical body? I believe you're unnecessarily ascribing your religious based fears and superstitions to matters you don’t understand.
> 
> Why would your gods punish those who don’t believe in them? That is is coercive and manipulative. That concept is, of course, what the writers of the Bible have claimed but we largely don’t know who the authors of the Bibles are and none of your gods were ever credited with direct communication of the Bible’s content.
> 
> Is there some perverse pleasure that the hyper-religious get from living in abject fear and worse, attempting to terrify children with their fears and superstitions?
Click to expand...


>>Actually, it is the religioner who presumes existence of the gods and some asserted afterlife by assumption. There is no scientific evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods, nor is there any evidence for your asserted afterlife of fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.<<

No, it's based on historical documentation and the Christians have creation science behind them which is backed up by experimental science.  I can accept that atheists won't believe in the afterlife because all we have are are people's explanations of what they saw and experienced with near-death experiences and one scientist's professional opinion.

>>Your claims to antibibles, Satans and your willingness to live in fear is a sad existence. You make allusions to ''spirit realms'' you claim exists. How does anyone identify a spirit realm outside of the physical body? I believe you're unnecessarily ascribing your religious based fears and superstitions to matters you don’t understand.<<

Antibible is only from me so I can accept that criticism, too, but it's one heck of a coincidence that evolution contradicts everything that God stated in the Bible.

I never made a claim that one can identify a spirit realm outside of a physical body, but it's based on NDE anecdotes and there could be evidence that a spirit realm exists.  One scientist, Dr. Sam Parnia has been researching.

>> Why would your gods punish those who don’t believe in them? That is is coercive and manipulative. That concept is, of course, what the writers of the Bible have claimed but we largely don’t know who the authors of the Bibles are and none of your gods were ever credited with direct communication of the Bible’s content.<<

Because it goes against the one command made of God to us of Noah's generation.  Why would God come up with and go through all the trouble to save us?

Basically, you reap what you sow.  

The science is look for the evidence.  We have the evidence of a global flood which was the punishment that Adam and Eve's generation received.  God had one command for Adam and Eve.  Their descendants had the same command, but to believe that a Savior was coming.  Post-Jesus, it is belief that he save us.  Christians don't go out of their way to announce this for nothing.  

I can't help it if you do not have faith in God, but decided on no God/gods.  That's the free will God gave us.

>>Is there some perverse pleasure that the hyper-religious get from living in abject fear and worse, attempting to terrify children with their fears and superstitions?<<

How can it be religious based fears?  What am I fearful of?  How do we terrify children?

God fearing person refers to enjoying the devout feeling towards God.  We teach children in order to diffentiate between good and evil and have them exerience the devout feeling towards God.  Atheists so not have this devout feeling because of denial and probably deny it out of fear.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> No, it's based on historical documentation and the Christians have creation science behind them which is backed up by experimental science.  I can accept that atheists won't believe in the afterlife because all we have are are people's explanations of what they saw and experienced with near-death experiences and one scientist's professional opinion.



There is no historical (perhaps you mean hysterical) documentation of so-called creation scientists doing experimentation and lab study. As you know, none of the creation ministries do research and none submit to peer reviewed journals.  Preconceived beliefs and a built-in bias are a requirement of the “statement of faith” that is a prerequisite for the creation ministries  Here’s one example, but they’re all same.









						Foundational Principles
					






					www.icr.org
				




As to some claimed afterlife, there is no data to support any such thing.




james bond said:


> Antibible is only from me so I can accept that criticism, too, but it's one heck of a coincidence that evolution contradicts everything that God stated in the Bible.



Yes, I understand the silly "antibible" is some perverse invention of yours. The term has no meaningful definition, no practical application and no standard of interpretation. Super!

Here is your Bible'ology lesson for the day: the gods said nothing in the Bible. You make the same mistakes and write the same false claims again and again. The writers of the Bibles are largely unknown. Nothing in the any of the Bibles suggests that any gods spoke directly to the writers of the Bibles. While it may be that you have a pathology to make false statements about the Bibles, that doesn't suggest others should hesitate to identify those falsehoods.

Your fondness for anecdotal evidence would suggest you give credence to Bigfoot, Nessie, alien abduction, Leprechauns hoarding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, etc. Super!  It's unfortunate that Charlatans seem to find a willing audience to accept claims to all forms of unsupported, nonsensical claims.




james bond said:


> Because it goes against the one command made of God to us of Noah's generation.  Why would God come up with and go through all the trouble to save us?
> 
> Basically, you reap what you sow.
> 
> The science is look for the evidence.  We have the evidence of a global flood which was the punishment that Adam and Eve's generation received.  God had one command for Adam and Eve.  Their descendants had the same command, but to believe that a Savior was coming.  Post-Jesus, it is belief that he save us.  Christians don't go out of their way to announce this for nothing.


There is no reason to accept that any gods made any commands. As we know,  the writers of the Bibles are largely unknown. Nothing in the any of the Bibles suggests that any gods spoke directly to the writers of the Bibles.

There is no evidence of a global flood that occurred just a few thousand years ago. If you choose to believe in angry, emotive gods who despised their very "creation" that's fine, but you shouldn't presume to foist your fears and superstitions on others.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There is no historical (perhaps you mean hysterical) documentation of so-called creation scientists doing experimentation and lab study. As you know, none of the creation ministries do research and none submit to peer reviewed journals. Preconceived beliefs and a built-in bias are a requirement of the “statement of faith” that is a prerequisite for the creation ministries Here’s one example, but they’re all same.



They were peer reviewed by regular science before the 1850s.  Creation science is being more accepted again because of the evidence of a global flood.  People who believe in God never stopped doing experiments and lab study.  It's you who are ignorant and useless.  Since creation scientists cannot be peer reviewed by the _religious_ atheist scientists, they peer review each other's work.  Atheist scientists have gone to consensus as to what is best theory which could lead to error.



Hollie said:


> As to some claimed afterlife, there is no data to support any such thing.



How do you explain all the eyewitnesses to Jesus' Resurrection then?  It is the foundation of Christianity.  Again, you miss the obvious and are blinded by you know who
. We will _all_ be resurrected. It's probably the basis for all the living dead stories popular today as the non-believers become the living dead.



Hollie said:


> Here is your Bible'ology lesson for the day: the gods said nothing in the Bible. You make the same mistakes and write the same false claims again and again. The writers of the Bibles are largely unknown. Nothing in the any of the Bibles suggests that any gods spoke directly to the writers of the Bibles. While it may be that you have a pathology to make false statements about the Bibles, that doesn't suggest others should hesitate to identify those falsehoods.



First, I caught you in a bald faced lie . Many people know the *Apostles -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John*.  They are familiar with Genesis that many think was written by *Moses*.  God said he did in the Bible and what went in the Bible has been well studied and researched by its scholars.  It's still being done today.  It's probably even more rigorous as it includes creation science even though it isn't a science book.  Real science backs it up.  I would not and could not make up a claim like that.  Probably, the most difficult to find evidence for is the age of the Earth.  Can we just write you off as extremely ignorant of science?



Hollie said:


> Your fondness for anecdotal evidence would suggest you give credence to Bigfoot, Nessie, alien abduction, Leprechauns hoarding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, etc. Super! It's unfortunate that Charlatans seem to find a willing audience to accept claims to all forms of unsupported, nonsensical claims.



I would say all of evolution is anecdotal.  It starts with a story of uniformitarianism and is continued on by evolution's Moses in Charles Darwin.  You even have made up a geological timeline that has nothing to do with time, but is named after location.  That is evidence right there that it is anecdotal and wrong.  

As for the rest, it's more your irrational thinking putting lies upon creation scientists.  Doesn't Bigfoot fit more of your humans came from apes hypothesis?  It looks like a furry animal and is bipedal.  Of course, it could be footage of a human wearing a disguise.  This is an indictment against you speaking without thinking and putting myths upon creation science when evolution is more anecdotal and mythological.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> They were peer reviewed by regular science before the 1850s. Creation science is being more accepted again because of the evidence of a global flood. People who believe in God never stopped doing experiments and lab study. It's you who are ignorant and useless. Since creation scientists cannot be peer reviewed by the _religious_ atheist scientists, they peer review each other's work. Atheist scientists have gone to consensus as to what is best theory which could lead to error.



What is ‘’regular science’’ as opposed to irregular science? I understand you use the 1850’s as a demarcation because that is a timeline when chemistry, biology, the physical sciences began to flourish _*and*_ as we know, “_On the Origin of Species_” was first published on Nov 24, 1859.

Actually, there is no reliable evidence of a global flood just a few thousand years ago. And, ID’iot creationer science is a laughable joke that has repeatedly been stripped of any credibility.

Actually, ID’iot creationers do no lab work and do noy publish in peer reviewed journals. The charlatans you claim do lab work are a frauds. The Disco’tute, creation.com, the ICR, etc., are little more than a repository for hacks and charlatans. Please identify the research papers submitted for peer review by the well-known hacks at the Disco’tute, creation.com, the ICR,. What reference material published by the Disco’tute, creation.com, the ICR hacks are used by any college or university?

Even if we are generous regarding standards and criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the entirety of the ID’iot creationist movement is virtually zero. Rather pathetic, especially considering the long history and funding of the movement. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationist research.

As an example of just how fraudulent the Disco’tute really is:

Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.









Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
Discovery Institute

As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumbwhen he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image.





james bond said:


> How do you explain all the eyewitnesses to Jesus' Resurrection then? It is the foundation of Christianity. Again, you miss the obvious and are blinded by you know who
> . We will _all_ be resurrected. It's probably the basis for all the living dead stories popular today as the non-believers become the living dead.



I don’t explain it because there were none.





james bond said:


> First, I caught you in a bald faced lie . Many people know the *Apostles -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John*. They are familiar with Genesis that many think was written by *Moses*. God said he did in the Bible and what went in the Bible has been well studied and researched by its scholars. It's still being done today. It's probably even more rigorous as it includes creation science even though it isn't a science book. Real science backs it up. I would not and could not make up a claim like that. Probably, the most difficult to find evidence for is the age of the Earth. Can we just write you off as extremely ignorant of science?



You caught yourself in an admission of ignorance regarding your Bible’ology. The so-called Gospel of Mark dates from somewhere around AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke somewhere around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascription of “Gospels” to those noted, all four are anonymous and there is no evidence that they actually wrote anything. Further, the “Gospels” were written decades after the events and none were written by eyewitnesses.

The gods never “said” anything in the Bibles.

Science does not ‘’back up’’ the Bibles. That’s a standard claim for ID’iot creationers who are never able to ‘’back up’’ their specious claims. Nothing in the any of the Bibles suggests that any gods spoke directly to the writers of the Bibles. While it may be that you have a pathology to make false statements about the Bibles, that doesn't suggest others should hesitate to identify those falsehoods.

In this post, as with others, you betray the fundamental conflict with which you personally struggle. Caught between what you *know to be true* as a functioning human being in the real world and what you *wish were true* as a sectarian advocate, you find yourself incapable of maintaining a line of argument that is both consistent and conforms with your dogma.





james bond said:


> I would say all of evolution is anecdotal. It starts with a story of uniformitarianism and is continued on by evolution's Moses in Charles Darwin. You even have made up a geological timeline that has nothing to do with time, but is named after location. That is evidence right there that it is anecdotal and wrong.
> 
> As for the rest, it's more your irrational thinking putting lies upon creation scientists. Doesn't Bigfoot fit more of your humans came from apes hypothesis? It looks like a furry animal and is bipedal. Of course, it could be footage of a human wearing a disguise. This is an indictment against you speaking without thinking and putting myths upon creation science when evolution is more anecdotal and mythological.



ID’iot creationers would be expected to say that evolution is anecdotal because science confounds ID’iot creationer dogma.

You might want to explain how every research / teaching university is a party to the vast science conspiracy theory that you insist exists. Unfortunately for ID’iot creationers, their conclusions rest on the fallacy of equivocation. They wishe to somehow denigrate the conceptual and factual status of biological evolution, and yet they can not do so using the operational definition of “theory” and “fact.” So, instead they are reduced to invent a category of “phact” that is superior to “scientific fact,” which they labels as “The Gods Did It.”

Facts are the data of nature. Theories are the conceptual frameworks that explain them. There are (for example) many “origin of species” theories, and we judge among them based on which theory explains the most facts in the most parsimonious way. But regardless of which theory turns out to eventually be true, the facts they are meant to explain do not go away.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Facts are the data of nature. Theories are the conceptual frameworks that explain them. There are (for example) many “origin of species” theories, and we judge among them based on which theory explains the most facts in the most parsimonious way. But regardless of which theory turns out to eventually be true, the facts they are meant to explain do not go away.



I'm tired of explaining over and over again to someone who doesn't understand science and instead repeats falsities of evolution and treats them as facts.  Evolution isn't even a good theory.

The facts disprove evolution.  No one has or ever will observe evolution.  There are no transitional fossils despite all your talk about a common ancestor.  Thus, the common ancestor is a lie.  We can't have evolved because our population numbers are too low for the time that evolutionists give.  There is no evidence for fish to turn into animals with legs, feet, and lungs in order to come onto land.  It is also scientific fact that chemicals do not organize themselves into living things through natural processes.  Or a lens, cornea, and optic nerve cannot accidentally assemble themselves into a functioning vision system.  We do not even observe the parts of plants or animals come together.

If evolution is based on facts, then name one thing that proves evolution?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are the data of nature. Theories are the conceptual frameworks that explain them. There are (for example) many “origin of species” theories, and we judge among them based on which theory explains the most facts in the most parsimonious way. But regardless of which theory turns out to eventually be true, the facts they are meant to explain do not go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of explaining over and over again to someone who doesn't understand science and instead repeats falsities of evolution and treats them as facts.  Evolution isn't even a good theory.
> 
> The facts disprove evolution.  No one has or ever will observe evolution.  There are no transitional fossils despite all your talk about a common ancestor.  Thus, the common ancestor is a lie.  We can't have evolved because our population numbers are too low for the time that evolutionists give.  There is no evidence for fish to turn into animals with legs, feet, and lungs in order to come onto land.  It is also scientific fact that chemicals do not organize themselves into living things through natural processes.  Or a lens, cornea, and optic nerve cannot accidentally assemble themselves into a functioning vision system.  We do not even observe the parts of plants or animals come together.
> 
> If evolution is based on facts, then name one thing that proves evolution?
Click to expand...


It seems your tired “... because I say so” arguments leave you to lash out in your usual emotional outbursts.

Sadly, as covered _ad nauseam_ in multiple threads, no such thing as an “absolute fact” actually exists. The operational definition of “fact” is something confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. From there we proceed on the fact that science has shown that biological organisms evolve over time. You can deny this and hide in your safe space of fear and ignorance but that won’t change the facts. Theories never become facts. Theories *explain* facts. Facts and theories are two different things, not rungs on a hierarchical ladder of confidence from guess to hypothesis to theory to fact.

There *is only* evidence. Just as your “the gods did it via supernatural means" claim was not an absolute proof, the proof that humans evolved from apelike ancestors is likewise provisional. Evidence is necessary to gain confidence in any idea. And just as your sectarian claims to fat naked babies playing harps in heaven is not evidence of anything, the evidence of human (and all biological evolution) serves as fact.

The difference between claims to magic and supernaturalism is that the proof of evolution is far more powerful. Where your screeching about the gods only a single data point, evolution has millions. There are millions of points of proof in our DNA alone. And this is why (as Gould pointed out) we can consider evolution to be a fact. To the fullest extent possible by human beings, it has been proven.

If, as you claim, there are no transitional fossils, why are there, you know, transitional fossils? Have the gods played a cruel joke on the hyper-religious?

*Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ*


*http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html*


*http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html*


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> If, as you claim, there are no transitional fossils, why are there, you know, transitional fossils?



You are Ms. Pinocchio with big, long nose.  You must have problems with the corona mask.

"There are many transitional fossils.  The only way that the claim of   their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the   evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a   fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct   descendant of another.  However, direct lineages are not required; they   could not be verified even if found.  What a transitional fossil is, in   keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that   shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism."

Thus, TO just admitted there are no transitional fossils and no evolution.  You lie with evolution.  I tell the truth with creation science.


----------



## james bond

Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."

Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.

For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.


Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, there are no transitional fossils, why are there, you know, transitional fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are Ms. Pinocchio with big, long nose.  You must have problems with the corona mask.
> 
> "There are many transitional fossils.  The only way that the claim of   their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the   evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a   fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct   descendant of another.  However, direct lineages are not required; they   could not be verified even if found.  What a transitional fossil is, in   keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that   shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism."
> 
> Thus, TO just admitted there are no transitional fossils and no evolution.  You lie with evolution.  I tell the truth with creation science.
Click to expand...


Your emotional outburst does nothing to refute the abundance of transitional fossils. As is typical of the ID'iot creationers, you will insist that anything but a perfectly preserved fossil history supports your odd notions of a young, flat earth. 

Oddly, if the planet really was 6,000 years old, there _shouldn't be any_ of the fossil evidence we see today dating back millions of years. Quite a dilemma for the ID'iot creationers. 

Actually, there is no twoof in ID'iot creationism. It is merely a commitment to fundamentalist Christian dogma.









						Foundational Principles
					






					www.icr.org
				






The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the “spiritual” nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.


The nonsense rolls on but it is all about appeals to supernaturalism and magical gods,


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.



You mean there are no transitional fossils except for the transitional fossils. 

Odd how religious extremists claim to destroy 'evilution' with nothing more than ''... because it conflicts with my Sunday school lessons''. 










						New Fossils Fill the Evolutionary Gap Between Fish and Land Animals
					

Predator has sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head and flattened body




					www.nsf.gov
				













						Transitional fossils and the origin of turtles
					

The origin of turtles is one of the most contentious issues in systematics with three currently viable hypotheses: turtles as the extant sister to (i) the crocodile–bird clade, (ii) the lizard–tuatara clade, or (iii) Diapsida (a clade ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				







			https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
		








						Discovery of new fossils reveals key link in evolution of hind limbs
					






					news.uchicago.edu
				





This would be the appropriate time for the religious extremists to submit the data they have researched to document a 6,000 year old planet created by magic.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean there are no transitional fossils except for the transitional fossils.
> 
> Odd how religious extremists claim to destroy 'evilution' with nothing more than ''... because it conflicts with my Sunday school lessons''.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Fossils Fill the Evolutionary Gap Between Fish and Land Animals
> 
> 
> Predator has sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head and flattened body
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsf.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional fossils and the origin of turtles
> 
> 
> The origin of turtles is one of the most contentious issues in systematics with three currently viable hypotheses: turtles as the extant sister to (i) the crocodile–bird clade, (ii) the lizard–tuatara clade, or (iii) Diapsida (a clade ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discovery of new fossils reveals key link in evolution of hind limbs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.uchicago.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be the appropriate time for the religious extremists to submit the data they have researched to document a 6,000 year old planet created by magic.
Click to expand...


Is that what you call facts haha?

Just calling them "transitional" forms doesn't make it so.  Those don't have well defined feet for example.

Anyway, I found out this weekend that its most atheist scientists who want to get into Nature and Science by making a great discovery are those who believe in evolution.  The rest believe in creation and just continue to make discoveries or their work.  Most engineers who want to make some great discovery and make money from it do not believe in evolution.  I guess I fall more into the latter category than those who want to get papers published in Nature and Science.  Obviously, you wont accept the word of a priest who believes in creation.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean there are no transitional fossils except for the transitional fossils.
> 
> Odd how religious extremists claim to destroy 'evilution' with nothing more than ''... because it conflicts with my Sunday school lessons''.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Fossils Fill the Evolutionary Gap Between Fish and Land Animals
> 
> 
> Predator has sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head and flattened body
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsf.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional fossils and the origin of turtles
> 
> 
> The origin of turtles is one of the most contentious issues in systematics with three currently viable hypotheses: turtles as the extant sister to (i) the crocodile–bird clade, (ii) the lizard–tuatara clade, or (iii) Diapsida (a clade ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discovery of new fossils reveals key link in evolution of hind limbs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.uchicago.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be the appropriate time for the religious extremists to submit the data they have researched to document a 6,000 year old planet created by magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you call facts haha?
> 
> Just calling them "transitional" forms doesn't make it so.  Those don't have well defined feet for example.
> 
> Anyway, I found out this weekend that its most atheist scientists who want to get into Nature and Science by making a great discovery are those who believe in evolution.  The rest believe in creation and just continue to make discoveries or their work.  Most engineers who want to make some great discovery and make money from it do not believe in evolution.  I guess I fall more into the latter category than those who want to get papers published in Nature and Science.  Obviously, you wont accept the word of a priest who believes in creation.
Click to expand...


Yes. That's what I call facts, haha.

What you didn't find out this weekend was that there's no requirement for belief when facts are known. There is no requirement for belief in gravity. Gravity is a known phenomenon as is biological evolution.

Odd that further a falsehood when you claim ''the rest believe in creation and just continue to make discoveries or their work''. The phrasing makes no sense and neither does the claim that fundie christians are making discoveries. I've asked repeatedly for the names / locations of these creationer labs and for any peer reviewed research work that creationer charlatans have submitted for peer review. Still nothing. What fields of research are creationer charlatans engaged in? What research lab is Ann Gauger associated with?

Maybe this one?









						Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image
					

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.




					arstechnica.com
				




A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.












Why aren’t you insulted that creationer charlatans lied to you and tried to perpetrate such a fraud?



Why would I “believe a priest” or a creationer about science matters when I know they lie and have a precommittment to dogma, not truth and facts?



			Scientific Creationism and Error
		


Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error.

Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Gravity is a known phenomenon



Wrong again.  We do not know what gravity is.  We only know how it works and the effects it has and it is so consistent in our universe that we have the Law of Gravity. 

In fact, we've discussed this before.  Remember LHC scientists were trying to find the graviton and weren't successful as it is one of the weaker forces 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. 

I ended up winning the argument because if anything, it shows that there is God as he created gravity to keep the Earth, moon, and sun in just the right place to affect each other.  Jesus could be gravity.  No, he does not suck, but attracts.  He also repels his detractors. 

It also shows that evolution is not a fact as there is nothing like it to compare to gravity.  It's just made up atheist religious belief.



Hollie said:


> Odd that further a falsehood when you claim ''the rest believe in creation and just continue to make discoveries or their work''. The phrasing makes no sense and neither does the claim that fundie christians are making discoveries. I've asked repeatedly for the names / locations of these creationer labs and for any peer reviewed research work that creationer charlatans have submitted for peer review. Still nothing. What fields of research are creationer charlatans engaged in? What research lab is Ann Gauger associated with?



I meant "do their work."  I think the majority of people do not believe in atheist evolution.  Pew polling backs me up.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Maybe this one?



I'll assume Ann Gauger doesn't believe in evolution.  She's one of the fair biologists.  She points out the circular reasoning which starts out with an assumption which is what I just pointed out in my destroy evolution in one post.

“The biggest problem with population genetics estimates is the implicit assumption is common descent, and that similarity of [genetic] sequence implies similarity of descent, that they come from a common ancestor," she says. Later, she notes that “it’s premature to say that just because two things look alike, say chimps and humans, that they’re descended from a common ancestor."


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.
Click to expand...

It's called nutrition and better environmental control.
I also walk out my door to my car as opposed to waiting 30 minutes for bus.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity is a known phenomenon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  We do not know what gravity is.  We only know how it works and the effects it has and it is so consistent in our universe that we have the Law of Gravity.
> 
> In fact, we've discussed this before.  Remember LHC scientists were trying to find the graviton and weren't successful as it is one of the weaker forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I ended up winning the argument because if anything, it shows that there is God as he created gravity to keep the Earth, moon, and sun in just the right place to affect each other.  Jesus could be gravity.  No, he does not suck, but attracts.  He also repels his detractors.
> 
> It also shows that evolution is not a fact as there is nothing like it to compare to gravity.  It's just made up atheist religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that further a falsehood when you claim ''the rest believe in creation and just continue to make discoveries or their work''. The phrasing makes no sense and neither does the claim that fundie christians are making discoveries. I've asked repeatedly for the names / locations of these creationer labs and for any peer reviewed research work that creationer charlatans have submitted for peer review. Still nothing. What fields of research are creationer charlatans engaged in? What research lab is Ann Gauger associated with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant "do their work."  I think the majority of people do not believe in atheist evolution.  Pew polling backs me up.
Click to expand...

My comment was, specifically, “Gravity is a known phenomenon.” That’s true. Look up the definition of phenomenon.

How strange that the force of, and effects of gravity became much better understood with the fields of astronomy and how gravity affects space and time. How strange that those studies and investigations were performed by scientists and engineers. I don’t recall that ICR was a part of those works.

I’m delighted that you chose yourself as some “winner”. I’m delighted that you have decided that the gods invented gravity, that the Jesus himself is gravity. So.... with your authoritative “... because I say so” commandment that the gods inventing gravity, I guess we can thank the gods for cataclysmic events like meteor and asteroid impacts such as what impacted this planet 65 million years ago.

I’m mightily impressed that your “... because I say so” argument is convincing only to you.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll assume Ann Gauger doesn't believe in evolution.  She's one of the fair biologists.  She points out the circular reasoning which starts out with an assumption which is what I just pointed out in my destroy evolution in one post.
> 
> “The biggest problem with population genetics estimates is the implicit assumption is common descent, and that similarity of [genetic] sequence implies similarity of descent, that they come from a common ancestor," she says. Later, she notes that “it’s premature to say that just because two things look alike, say chimps and humans, that they’re descended from a common ancestor."
Click to expand...

Yes, Ann Gauger is fair in that she doesn’t believe in evolution, because you say so.

I guess in the world of the hyper-religious, “fair” includes lies and deceit as exhibited with her falsely claiming to do research in a lab that was green screened intending to fool the gullible.

If you want to see why Ann Gauger is a fraud, you can read here: Paul McBride's review of the Disco 'Tute's

Ann Gauger and the truly ignorant comment “it’s premature to say that just because two things look alike, say chimps and humans, that they’re descended from a common ancestor." is intended to appeal to the hyper-religious who are a gullible audience. You should be aware that science has tools such as DNA mapping to identify more than appearance connecting living species.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition and better environmental control.
> I also walk out my door to my car as opposed to waiting 30 minutes for bus.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's still evolution of humans to be taller. Of course there are reasons that push evolution, that's how it works.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition and better environmental control.
> I also walk out my door to my car as opposed to waiting 30 minutes for bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's still evolution of humans to be taller. Of course there are reasons that push evolution, that's how it works.
Click to expand...

You mean Lincoln was short?
Look at out friends South of the border...it's called malnutrition.
Of course, the extra arms they evolved also help with construction.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition and better environmental control.
> I also walk out my door to my car as opposed to waiting 30 minutes for bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's still evolution of humans to be taller. Of course there are reasons that push evolution, that's how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean Lincoln was short?
> Look at out friends South of the border...it's called malnutrition.
> Of course, the extra arms they evolved also help with construction.
Click to expand...

You literally scream out your ignorance. Individuals do not represent population genetics. Groups /species evolve, not individuals.

That’s depicted clearly with modern health, medicines and diets.









						Human Height
					

The average height of a population can inform us about the nutrition and living conditions of populations in the past for which we have little other data.




					ourworldindata.org
				




Unless, of course, you can represent that the gods decided that they would make modern populations taller, heavier and extend their life spans because they were bored with their administrative duties.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition and better environmental control.
> I also walk out my door to my car as opposed to waiting 30 minutes for bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's still evolution of humans to be taller. Of course there are reasons that push evolution, that's how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean Lincoln was short?
> Look at out friends South of the border...it's called malnutrition.
> Of course, the extra arms they evolved also help with construction.
Click to expand...

Which shows that depending on where you are, humans can evolve at different rates. If there was no evolution, we’d all be the same size. And throughput history as well.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition and better environmental control.
> I also walk out my door to my car as opposed to waiting 30 minutes for bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's still evolution of humans to be taller. Of course there are reasons that push evolution, that's how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean Lincoln was short?
> Look at out friends South of the border...it's called malnutrition.
> Of course, the extra arms they evolved also help with construction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which shows that depending on where you are, humans can evolve at different rates. If there was no evolution, we’d all be the same size. And throughput history as well.
Click to expand...

Where are my extra arms and legs?
Where's my fur coat?


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we are finally getting to destroying evolution in one post.  This thread should be re-titled "Evolution of the gaps."
> 
> Besides no transitional fossils, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
> 
> This is part of the religion of atheism and its scientific atheism.  People like Hollie, abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, Taz, and atheist scientists believe anything because they just* assume it happened*.
> 
> For example, how do we show evolution is a fact?  We'll just assume it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition and better environmental control.
> I also walk out my door to my car as opposed to waiting 30 minutes for bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's still evolution of humans to be taller. Of course there are reasons that push evolution, that's how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean Lincoln was short?
> Look at out friends South of the border...it's called malnutrition.
> Of course, the extra arms they evolved also help with construction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which shows that depending on where you are, humans can evolve at different rates. If there was no evolution, we’d all be the same size. And throughput history as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are my extra arms and legs?
> Where's my fur coat?
Click to expand...

All species evolved differently. Now you know.


----------



## K9Buck

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `




Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator.  If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.


----------



## Taz

K9Buck said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator.  If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.
Click to expand...

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.


----------



## Hollie

K9Buck said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator.  If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, we’re forced to ask about creation of some alleged creator. Otherwise, we’re forced to believe that nothing created the creator.


----------



## K9Buck

Taz said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator.  If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
Click to expand...


Simple logic proves it.


----------



## K9Buck

Hollie said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator.  If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the other hand, we’re forced to ask about creation of some alleged creator. Otherwise, we’re forced to believe that nothing created the creator.
Click to expand...



Something had to come first that did not require a creator.  Again, simple logic.


----------



## Hollie

K9Buck said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator.  If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the other hand, we’re forced to ask about creation of some alleged creator. Otherwise, we’re forced to believe that nothing created the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Something had to come first that did not require a creator.  Again, simple logic.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing “logical” about an uncreated creator.


----------



## Taz

K9Buck said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic dictates that the universe and all that resides in it has a creator.  If you don't believe that then you're forced to believe that nothing created everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple logic proves it.
Click to expand...

Simple logic is how they determined that the world was flat.


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.



It means you don't know about tallness.  Tallness isn't necessarily better in terms of health.  For a man, it is key because women are attracted to taller men.

What it boils down to is the Bible and Romans.  “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25

We know this because the majority of scientists and people who believe in evolution are atheists.  It isn't evolution that drives atheism, but atheism that drives evolution.  That's why I state it starts with your faith in no God/gods.


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. They are quite a bit smaller than those today. Which means that we've been evolving to be taller humans over time. You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means you don't know about tallness.  Tallness isn't necessarily better in terms of health.  For a man, it is key because women are attracted to taller men.
> 
> What it boils down to is the Bible and Romans.  “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25
> 
> We know this because the majority of scientists and people who believe in evolution are atheists.  It isn't evolution that drives atheism, but atheism that drives evolution.  That's why I state it starts with your faith in no God/gods.
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?



God would not need evolution.  He already created natural selection, migration, and genetic drift.  What God didn't have in his plan was mutation.

It was evolutionists who created "beneficial" mutations when there were mostly neutral and few bad ones.


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.



Yet, you believe in evolution.  Most people who support and believe in evolution start out as atheist and liberal.  I think you just call yourself agnostic.

Anyway, what many don't believe are humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs, i.e. macroevolution.  Microevolution by mutation doesn't happen either, but that's more a deeper science argument that most people avoid.  For example, ask an evolutionist to give you an example of beneficial mutation.


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you believe in evolution.  Most people who support and believe in evolution start out as atheist and liberal.  I think you just call yourself agnostic.
> 
> Anyway, what many don't believe are humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs, i.e. macroevolution.  Microevolution by mutation doesn't happen either, but that's more a deeper science argument that most people avoid.  For example, ask an evolutionist to give you an example of beneficial mutation.
Click to expand...

So apes existed long before humans came about, and then humans just popped into existence?


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> So apes existed long before humans came about, and then humans just popped into existence?



That's the weird and strange scientific atheism.  Humans didn't just pop into existence, but the apes became some strange common ancestor that no one knows what they looked like and have no evidence whatsoever.  It was good mutation that did it, but no one has ever seen a good one.  This is the evolution of the gaps.  They just assumed evolution happened because they said so.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God would not need evolution.  He already created natural selection, migration, and genetic drift.  What God didn't have in his plan was mutation.
> 
> It was evolutionists who created "beneficial" mutations when there were mostly neutral and few bad ones.
Click to expand...

When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations?  Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you believe in evolution.  Most people who support and believe in evolution start out as atheist and liberal.  I think you just call yourself agnostic.
> 
> Anyway, what many don't believe are humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs, i.e. macroevolution.  Microevolution by mutation doesn't happen either, but that's more a deeper science argument that most people avoid.  For example, ask an evolutionist to give you an example of beneficial mutation.
Click to expand...


Most religious extremists are people who simply parrot the dogma they are indoctrinated with. 

You should learn the meaning of terms and definitions you don't understand.





						29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
					

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or...




					www.talkorigins.org
				





Here's an example of a beneficial mutation. 





						Examples of Beneficial Mutation
					

Mutation, a change in the sequence of genes, is divided into various types such as beneficial, harmful, and neutral, based on their effects. We are here to discuss beneficial mutation in detail.




					biologywise.com
				




Here's another from a high school level study course.








						Beneficial Mutations Effects & Examples | How Can Mutations be Beneficial? - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
					

Learn about beneficial mutations. Understand what is a beneficial mutation, how mutations can be beneficial, and see the examples in humans and...




					study.com


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `



The "God of the Gaps" concept is a joke!  Science can't explain bedrock phenomenon: 

Why does the Earth still have a spinning magnetic core?  
How did something as large as the Moon come into orbit around the Earth
Why is the Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the Sun's surface? 
Notice the only time the corona is visible is during a total eclipse and the only reason we have a total eclipse is because we have an impossibly gigantic Moon orbiting the Earth at the perfect size in the sky to perfectly eclipse the Sun


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.



The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.



Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.

If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land.  Mutations only execute changes that were already _pre-existing_. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.
> 
> If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land.  Mutations only execute changes that were already _pre-existing_. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.
Click to expand...

The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.

If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.

You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.

When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.
> 
> If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land.  Mutations only execute changes that were already _pre-existing_. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.
> 
> If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.
> 
> You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.
> 
> When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.
Click to expand...


You could not explain in your own words how each of these examples were beneficial mutations.  I had to read your link and found they were not actual beneficial mutations, but just you claiming they were.

Moreover, I found your mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing in the cells.  Your second claim did not actually execute something different from that which was present in the cell.  For example, if a group a cells were to help a fish develop his side fins then a mutation would affect the fins.  They may be larger than the previous version.  The fin cells would produce variations of fins, but not produce a leg and feet there as the atheist evolutionists claim.  I mean we know what these cells can do and they just solely execute what the fin cells are supposed to do.  Even with long time, they won't become cells that will grow legs and feet.  Why?  They're not that type of cells.  The cells do not contain the information for legs and feet.  Had you read and understood your link so you could explain it to me, then you would have realized these mutations do not get additional information so the cells can become legs and feet.

Thus, I found that another of your claims was not true using your own link .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.
> 
> If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land.  Mutations only execute changes that were already _pre-existing_. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.
> 
> If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.
> 
> You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.
> 
> When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could not explain in your own words how each of these examples were beneficial mutations.  I had to read your link and found they were not actual beneficial mutations, but just you claiming they were.
> 
> Moreover, I found your mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing in the cells.  Your second claim did not actually execute something different from that which was present in the cell.  For example, if a group a cells were to help a fish develop his side fins then a mutation would affect the fins.  They may be larger than the previous version.  The fin cells would produce variations of fins, but not produce a leg and feet there as the atheist evolutionists claim.  I mean we know what these cells can do and they just solely execute what the fin cells are supposed to do.  Even with long time, they won't become cells that will grow legs and feet.  Why?  They're not that type of cells.  The cells do not contain the information for legs and feet.  Had you read and understood your link so you could explain it to me, then you would have realized these mutations do not get additional information so the cells can become legs and feet.
> 
> Thus, I found that another of your claims was not true using your own link .
Click to expand...

You could not explain how the beneficial mutations were not, in fact, beneficial mutations so you were left to make unfounded claims.

You made some unfounded claim about cells being preexisting yet that is simply another of your “... because I say”, claims. That is a standard tactic of the hyper-religious / non-scientific types.









						News Feature: Genetic mutations you want
					

To cure disease, researchers are starting to scour the genomes of the abnormally healthy.   In 2009, researchers at the Broad Institute in Boston, led by geneticist David Altshuler, started recruiting elderly, overweight individuals who, by all accounts, ought to have type 2 diabetes but didn’t...




					www.pnas.org
				













						Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection
					

When beneficial mutations are rare, they accumulate by a series of selective sweeps. But when they are common, many beneficial mutations will occur before any can fix, so there will be many different mutant lineages in the population concurrently. In ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				













						Bacteria Show Capacity for Rapid, Beneficial Mutations - UT News
					

Researchers discovered that bacteria can evolve much more efficiently than once thought, which might help develop better ways to treat nasty infections.



					news.utexas.edu
				





Soooo.... here we have additional data from leading science organizations and teaching / research universities refuting your unsourced, “... because I say so” claims. I would have thought you could offer some competing testing and research data from one of your ID’iot creation ministries. However, we both know that ID’iot creation ministries do no research. 

Once again we’re left to to the hyper-religious denying science and deny the research data in attempts to protect their sacred cows.


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
Click to expand...

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?



I doubt it was in God's plan, but I will give you that there are many believers who believe in God made evolution.  There are less who believe in straight creation from the Bible.  The difference between ding and I.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was in God's plan, but I will give you that there are many believers who believe in God made evolution.  There are less who believe in straight creation from the Bible.  The difference between ding and I.
Click to expand...

Warring hyper-religious types are fun to watch.


----------



## ding

Taz said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.
Click to expand...

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no. 

You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.


----------



## Taz

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.
> 
> You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.
Click to expand...

You're just jealous of my superior insight. Now go make me a happy meal.


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have of anything not subject to the laws of physics?  OTOH, I have everything is subject to the laws of physics and that is demonstrable by the scientific method.

Second, you talk of BB like it was a supernatural person.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.
> 
> If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land.  Mutations only execute changes that were already _pre-existing_. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.
> 
> If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.
> 
> You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.
> 
> When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could not explain in your own words how each of these examples were beneficial mutations.  I had to read your link and found they were not actual beneficial mutations, but just you claiming they were.
> 
> Moreover, I found your mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing in the cells.  Your second claim did not actually execute something different from that which was present in the cell.  For example, if a group a cells were to help a fish develop his side fins then a mutation would affect the fins.  They may be larger than the previous version.  The fin cells would produce variations of fins, but not produce a leg and feet there as the atheist evolutionists claim.  I mean we know what these cells can do and they just solely execute what the fin cells are supposed to do.  Even with long time, they won't become cells that will grow legs and feet.  Why?  They're not that type of cells.  The cells do not contain the information for legs and feet.  Had you read and understood your link so you could explain it to me, then you would have realized these mutations do not get additional information so the cells can become legs and feet.
> 
> Thus, I found that another of your claims was not true using your own link .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could not explain how the beneficial mutations were not, in fact, beneficial mutations so you were left to make unfounded claims.
> 
> You made some unfounded claim about cells being preexisting yet that is simply another of your “... because I say”, claims. That is a standard tactic of the hyper-religious / non-scientific types.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News Feature: Genetic mutations you want
> 
> 
> To cure disease, researchers are starting to scour the genomes of the abnormally healthy.   In 2009, researchers at the Broad Institute in Boston, led by geneticist David Altshuler, started recruiting elderly, overweight individuals who, by all accounts, ought to have type 2 diabetes but didn’t...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pnas.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection
> 
> 
> When beneficial mutations are rare, they accumulate by a series of selective sweeps. But when they are common, many beneficial mutations will occur before any can fix, so there will be many different mutant lineages in the population concurrently. In ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria Show Capacity for Rapid, Beneficial Mutations - UT News
> 
> 
> Researchers discovered that bacteria can evolve much more efficiently than once thought, which might help develop better ways to treat nasty infections.
> 
> 
> 
> news.utexas.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo.... here we have additional data from leading science organizations and teaching / research universities refuting your unsourced, “... because I say so” claims. I would have thought you could offer some competing testing and research data from one of your ID’iot creation ministries. However, we both know that ID’iot creation ministries do no research.
> 
> Once again we’re left to to the hyper-religious denying science and deny the research data in attempts to protect their sacred cows.
Click to expand...


Can you just briefly explain your links and how they support your argument of beneficial mutation?  I'm not going to read again to find something you didn't realize or missed for which I use to win the argument.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.



I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics.  I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed.  This would allow for their singularity haha.

ETA:  It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.


----------



## ding

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.
> 
> You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just jealous of my superior insight. Now go make me a happy meal.
Click to expand...

Taz, c'mon man.  It's because you hate yourself that you do the stupid things that you do.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics.  I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed.  This would allow for their singularity haha.
> 
> ETA:  It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.
Click to expand...

It's not possible for space and time to exist eternally without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which we do not see nor could we see because there would be no life in a universe which has reached thermal equilibrium. Space and time are created from the existence of energy and matter.  Energy and matter is not and will never be unchanging.  Energy and matter are constantly seeking equilibrium.  Thermal equilibrium is that final state of energy and matter as time approaches infinity.


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have of anything not subject to the laws of physics?  OTOH, I have everything is subject to the laws of physics and that is demonstrable by the scientific method.
> 
> Second, you talk of BB like it was a supernatural person.
Click to expand...

Whatever the BB was, science can only see back as far as around 400 million after the BB.


----------



## Taz

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.
> 
> You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just jealous of my superior insight. Now go make me a happy meal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taz, c'mon man.  It's because you hate yourself that you do the stupid things that you do.
Click to expand...

So I'm a self-hating agnostic rugmuncher?


----------



## ding

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.
> 
> You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just jealous of my superior insight. Now go make me a happy meal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taz, c'mon man.  It's because you hate yourself that you do the stupid things that you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I'm a self-hating agnostic rugmuncher?
Click to expand...

You aren't agnostic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have of anything not subject to the laws of physics?  OTOH, I have everything is subject to the laws of physics and that is demonstrable by the scientific method.
> 
> Second, you talk of BB like it was a supernatural person.
Click to expand...


The sun's corona, e.g.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.
> 
> If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land.  Mutations only execute changes that were already _pre-existing_. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.
> 
> If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.
> 
> You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.
> 
> When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could not explain in your own words how each of these examples were beneficial mutations.  I had to read your link and found they were not actual beneficial mutations, but just you claiming they were.
> 
> Moreover, I found your mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing in the cells.  Your second claim did not actually execute something different from that which was present in the cell.  For example, if a group a cells were to help a fish develop his side fins then a mutation would affect the fins.  They may be larger than the previous version.  The fin cells would produce variations of fins, but not produce a leg and feet there as the atheist evolutionists claim.  I mean we know what these cells can do and they just solely execute what the fin cells are supposed to do.  Even with long time, they won't become cells that will grow legs and feet.  Why?  They're not that type of cells.  The cells do not contain the information for legs and feet.  Had you read and understood your link so you could explain it to me, then you would have realized these mutations do not get additional information so the cells can become legs and feet.
> 
> Thus, I found that another of your claims was not true using your own link .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could not explain how the beneficial mutations were not, in fact, beneficial mutations so you were left to make unfounded claims.
> 
> You made some unfounded claim about cells being preexisting yet that is simply another of your “... because I say”, claims. That is a standard tactic of the hyper-religious / non-scientific types.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News Feature: Genetic mutations you want
> 
> 
> To cure disease, researchers are starting to scour the genomes of the abnormally healthy.   In 2009, researchers at the Broad Institute in Boston, led by geneticist David Altshuler, started recruiting elderly, overweight individuals who, by all accounts, ought to have type 2 diabetes but didn’t...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pnas.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection
> 
> 
> When beneficial mutations are rare, they accumulate by a series of selective sweeps. But when they are common, many beneficial mutations will occur before any can fix, so there will be many different mutant lineages in the population concurrently. In ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria Show Capacity for Rapid, Beneficial Mutations - UT News
> 
> 
> Researchers discovered that bacteria can evolve much more efficiently than once thought, which might help develop better ways to treat nasty infections.
> 
> 
> 
> news.utexas.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo.... here we have additional data from leading science organizations and teaching / research universities refuting your unsourced, “... because I say so” claims. I would have thought you could offer some competing testing and research data from one of your ID’iot creation ministries. However, we both know that ID’iot creation ministries do no research.
> 
> Once again we’re left to to the hyper-religious denying science and deny the research data in attempts to protect their sacred cows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you just briefly explain your links and how they support your argument of beneficial mutation?  I'm not going to read again to find something you didn't realize or missed for which I use to win the argument.
Click to expand...


I would suggest that read the links, especially the one that is directed to the high school student. That link explains beneficial mutations to those with a limited science vocabulary.

I’ve noticed a pattern of behavior where, when you are presented with the science data, you offer some variation of the “... because I say so” argument, utterly unsupported, and declare yourself the “winner”.

Can you offer some lab data prepared by one of your creation ministries which has performed testing and published works that refutes the existence of beneficial mutations?

For your use and information, here is a lengthy discussion that describes beneficial mutations.





__





						Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				






Here are the references that were used in compiling the above document.
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1997). _Evolutionary Biology_. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.

Ridley, Mark. (2003). _Evolution_. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.

Hartl, Daniel L. & Andrew G. Clark. (1997). _Principles of Population Genetics_. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.

Crow, James F. & Motoo Kimura. (1970). _Introduction to Population Genetics Theory_. Edina, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Company.

Graur, Dan & Wen-Hsiung Li. (2000). _Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution_. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.

Lewontin, Richard C. (1974). _The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change_. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Gillespie, John H. (1997). _The Causes of Molecular Evolution_. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Golding, Brian, ed. (1994). _Non-Neutral Evolution_. Boston: Chapman and Hall.

Kimura, Motoo. (1983). _The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution_. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Endler, John A. (1986). _Natural Selection in the Wild_. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press.

Eldredge, Niles. (1989). _Macroevolutionary Dynamics_. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cowen, Richard. (2004). _History of Life_. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.

Dawkins, Richard. (1987). _The Blind Watchmaker_. New York: W.W. Norton.

Kitcher, Philip. (1982). _Abusing Science_. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Wilson, Edward O. (1992). _The Diversity of Life_. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Belknap.

Darwin, Charles. (1859). _On the Origin of Species_.

Darwin, Charles. (1871). _The Descent of Man_.

Haldane, J.B.S. (1932). _The Causes of Evolution_. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press (reprinted 1990).

Simpson, George G. (1944). _Tempo and Mode in Evolution_. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Mayr, Ernst E. (1982). _The Growth of Biological Thought_. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Belknap.

Provine, William B. (2001). _The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics_. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time.  Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .
> 
> How do you explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have of anything not subject to the laws of physics?  OTOH, I have everything is subject to the laws of physics and that is demonstrable by the scientific method.
> 
> Second, you talk of BB like it was a supernatural person.
Click to expand...

Physics indicates that light from stars and galaxies is, you know, very far away. That light takes a bit more than, you know, 6,000 years to reach this planet.

Who needs to bother with physics when, you know, the gawds did it, by supernatural means.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics.  I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed.  This would allow for their singularity haha.
> 
> ETA:  It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not possible for space and time to exist eternally without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which we do not see nor could we see because there would be no life in a universe which has reached thermal equilibrium. Space and time are created from the existence of energy and matter.  Energy and matter is not and will never be unchanging.  Energy and matter are constantly seeking equilibrium.  Thermal equilibrium is that final state of energy and matter as time approaches infinity.
Click to expand...


One has to always preclude something if there is not space and time.  For example, if we are discussing big bang, then we have to assume it happened and things were in place for it to happen.  You can't have one without the other.  With time and space being eternal, everything was in equilibrium.


----------



## Taz

ding said:


> You aren't agnostic.


Well ok, you might as well get it ALL wrong,I'm a self-hating atheist rugmuncher. Feel better?


----------



## ding

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't agnostic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well ok, you might as well get it ALL wrong,I'm a self-hating atheist rugmuncher. Feel better?
Click to expand...

I don't get satisfaction from your misery.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics.  I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed.  This would allow for their singularity haha.
> 
> ETA:  It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not possible for space and time to exist eternally without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which we do not see nor could we see because there would be no life in a universe which has reached thermal equilibrium. Space and time are created from the existence of energy and matter.  Energy and matter is not and will never be unchanging.  Energy and matter are constantly seeking equilibrium.  Thermal equilibrium is that final state of energy and matter as time approaches infinity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has to always preclude something if there is not space and time.  For example, if we are discussing big bang, then we have to assume it happened and things were in place for it to happen.  You can't have one without the other.  With time and space being eternal, everything was in equilibrium.
Click to expand...

No. One must always preclude no thing is there.  God is no thing.


----------



## LuckyDuck

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `


Yeah.  The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

3 Scientists Awarded Nobel Prize In Physics For Discoveries Related To Black Holes
					

The prize goes to Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez. Ghez says she hopes it will inspire young people, and particularly women, to pursue careers in science.




					www.npr.org


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

So there seems to be less dark matter around sag a than was anticipated. This is because dark matter, which is composed of infinitely dense blue runes, is escaping from the supermassive black hole much faster than the speed of light. These blue runes don't lose their momentum until they are outside of the milky way. Then they orbit around our galaxy, becoming what we humans observe as dark matter.

I believe this confirms my theory about the three laws of physics: relativity, quantum and runes. You can send my check to...


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

Perhaps the waves of red runes--infinitely flat runes also known as antigravity--are messing with the tidal waves of gravity around sag a. These are the same red runes that are allowing the dark matter escaping from sag a to move faster than the speed of light. This might explain the phenomena of objects close to sag a not being stretched and unstretched as much as anticipated.


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

The woman physicist who won the nobel and was on scifri explained it very well, i think. Thank u


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

I don't know why there are less old stars around sag a than anticipated


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

LuckyDuck said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.
Click to expand...










						Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50
					

Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

LuckyDuck said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalisgtic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.
Click to expand...

That simulation study was announced yesterday on npr. Just in time to link it to your post. Coincidence?


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

LuckyDuck said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.
Click to expand...

Quantum and relativity are essentially two distinct laws of physics yet they seem to work together well enough for us to exist. Coincidence? I guess that is a gap that has not been filled yet


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

LuckyDuck said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.
Click to expand...

What if we fill in the gaps with god-like aliens?


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

LuckyDuck said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.
Click to expand...

Math fills one gap


			The letter i - math word definition
		

.


----------



## Stuartbirdan2

LuckyDuck said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.
Click to expand...

Imagine


			The letter i - math word definition
		

.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics.  I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed.  This would allow for their singularity haha.
> 
> ETA:  It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not possible for space and time to exist eternally without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which we do not see nor could we see because there would be no life in a universe which has reached thermal equilibrium. Space and time are created from the existence of energy and matter.  Energy and matter is not and will never be unchanging.  Energy and matter are constantly seeking equilibrium.  Thermal equilibrium is that final state of energy and matter as time approaches infinity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has to always preclude something if there is not space and time.  For example, if we are discussing big bang, then we have to assume it happened and things were in place for it to happen.  You can't have one without the other.  With time and space being eternal, everything was in equilibrium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. One must always preclude no thing is there.  God is no thing.
Click to expand...


If everything was nothing, then I would agree.  God would have had to exist.  We are discussing the science of atheism, so they claim space and time was eternal.  Otherwise, there could not have been singularity nor a big bang.  It's assumption is evolution of the gaps argument.

The problem I have with the big bang then would be its cosmic expansion.  That violated the laws of physics.


----------



## james bond

One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.

First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.

One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.

Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.


Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.


Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
Click to expand...


Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.

Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
Click to expand...

There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.

The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.

The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.

Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
Click to expand...


It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.

"The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.

Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."









						Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
					

As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.




					www.darwinthenandnow.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.
> 
> "The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
Click to expand...

How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science. 

When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.
> 
> "The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.
> 
> When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.
Click to expand...


Darwin murdered the poor birds and now they're all missing except for one tag.  Shabby way to treat them.

Here's an article from an atheist and pro homosexual website -- How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution. They confirm it wasn't Darwin who studied them, which was my point, but they're called "Darwin's finches"  when he really didn't give diddly.

"*Finches and Evolution  *

The _HMS Beagle_ continued to sail on to as far away lands as New Zealand before returning to England in 1836. It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common but different than the new Galapagos species."

Atheist and pro homosexual website link








						How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution
					

Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.




					www.thoughtco.com
				




Such BS from the evolution crowd.  I think it's typical of their lies and propping up their stooge Darwin!!!

++++++++

From the _careful and more accurate_ website you call a "Religioner" one,

"*Evaluating the Evidence*







 While the whereabouts of the birds are unknown today, the saga speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the birds during Darwin’s lifetime – they weren’t. According to Frank Sulloway of the University of California, Berkeley, only one of the original finch tags is even known to still be in existence today.

Only Gould’s vague evidence, at best, supports the once-popular argument that the Galapagos finches provided Darwin scientific evidence for his theory. Importantly, though, Darwin never argued that the finches delivered supporting evidence for his theory. The iconic status of the Darwin finch saga, ironically, cannot be attributed to Darwin. As Sulloway explains –

“Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.”

Niles Eldredge, the curator for the American Museum of Natural History, notes that interest in the finches “came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos [in 1835], having paid these birds hardly any heed.” Erin Blakemore, writing for the Smithsonian Magazine, points- out –

“The story that those birds inspired the theory of evolution has long been doubted.”

While the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge has the largest inventory of specimens collected by Darwin, yet there is not a single Darwin finch in their collection.

The British Museum has four mockingbird specimens thought to have been collected by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands; however, the final fate of the nineteen specimens they acquired in 1855 is unknown. Only the one identification label, once on a finch, remains as the only evidence today."









						Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
					

As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.




					www.darwinthenandnow.com
				




Such hypocrisy by the evolutionists!

The truth hurts doesn't it?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.
> 
> "The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.
> 
> When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin murdered the poor birds and now they're all missing except for one tag.  Shabby way to treat them.
> 
> Here's an article from an atheist and pro homosexual website -- How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution. They confirm it wasn't Darwin who studied them, which was my point, but they're called "Darwin's finches"  when he really didn't give diddly.
> 
> "*Finches and Evolution  *
> 
> The _HMS Beagle_ continued to sail on to as far away lands as New Zealand before returning to England in 1836. It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common but different than the new Galapagos species."
> 
> Atheist and pro homosexual website link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such BS from the evolution crowd.  I think it's typical of their lies and propping up their stooge Darwin!!!
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> From the _careful and more accurate_ website you call a "Religioner" one,
> 
> "*Evaluating the Evidence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the whereabouts of the birds are unknown today, the saga speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the birds during Darwin’s lifetime – they weren’t. According to Frank Sulloway of the University of California, Berkeley, only one of the original finch tags is even known to still be in existence today.
> 
> Only Gould’s vague evidence, at best, supports the once-popular argument that the Galapagos finches provided Darwin scientific evidence for his theory. Importantly, though, Darwin never argued that the finches delivered supporting evidence for his theory. The iconic status of the Darwin finch saga, ironically, cannot be attributed to Darwin. As Sulloway explains –
> 
> “Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.”
> 
> Niles Eldredge, the curator for the American Museum of Natural History, notes that interest in the finches “came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos [in 1835], having paid these birds hardly any heed.” Erin Blakemore, writing for the Smithsonian Magazine, points- out –
> 
> “The story that those birds inspired the theory of evolution has long been doubted.”
> 
> While the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge has the largest inventory of specimens collected by Darwin, yet there is not a single Darwin finch in their collection.
> 
> The British Museum has four mockingbird specimens thought to have been collected by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands; however, the final fate of the nineteen specimens they acquired in 1855 is unknown. Only the one identification label, once on a finch, remains as the only evidence today."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such hypocrisy by the evolutionists!
> 
> The truth hurts doesn't it?
Click to expand...


The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.

Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.

The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.

The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online

"Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. _*The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution*_. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''


I added the bolding for your use and education.


I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.

I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.


----------



## abu afak

Weatherman2020 said:
			
		

> *Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?*


*See OP and several more.
**
Note the classic "How did" in Both thread titles.*


*`*


----------



## Damaged Eagle

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `






God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## abu afak

> Weatherman2020
> 
> *Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?*


*

God of the gaps.*

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 419199
> 
> God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 419199
> 
> God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...





Is that why scientists had to steal the creation story?

*Roman Catholic Version
Genesis Chapter 1:1-10*

1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.
6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.
9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.






						Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online
					

1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.




					www.catholic.org
				




Because it's unfalsifiable.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Why haven't dolphin "evolved" to build telescopes?  Why hasn't life on Jupiter or Venus evolved to send us radio broadcast?

This evolution stuff sure is finnicky


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.



Profound truth.

I have just modified Science of the Bible to include Psalm 19:2

*Psalms 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.*

For centuries, astronomers have studied planets and stars, which have spoken eloquent volumes of knowledge and even mathematics. Sir Isaac Newton invented the calculus in order to understand and describe elliptical orbits of planets. No less a scientist than Carl Sagan said, “Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still.” (*Cosmos*, page 93) When a person of faith expresses amazement, they are ridiculed for expressing “The Argument From Incredulity.” When agnostic Sagan expresses the very same “argument,” other non-believers never ever ridicule or mock it. Such hypocrisy is unscientific and unintelligent.


----------



## ChemEngineer

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why haven't dolphin "evolved" to build telescopes?  Why hasn't life on Jupiter or Venus evolved to send us radio broadcast?
> 
> This evolution stuff sure is finnicky



I have half of an answer.
Jupiter is a gas giant. It has no solid surface. The temperature is -190 Fahrenheit, much too cold for anything to survive.
The temperature of Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, far hotter than any known life can exist on earth.

Biologists pretend to have an answer for everything, however simplistic and nonsensical it may be.  So why didn't "life" of some form alien to us "evolve"  on Jupiter and Venus?


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't dolphin "evolved" to build telescopes?  Why hasn't life on Jupiter or Venus evolved to send us radio broadcast?
> 
> This evolution stuff sure is finnicky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have half of an answer.
> Jupiter is a gas giant. It has no solid surface. The temperature is -190 Fahrenheit, much too cold for anything to survive.
> The temperature of Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, far hotter than any known life can exist on earth.
> 
> Biologists pretend to have an answer for everything, however simplistic and nonsensical it may be.  So why didn't "life" of some form alien to us "evolve"  on Jupiter and Venus?
Click to expand...

The only life we know anything about is the biological life on this planet. Because you don’t know, there are four basic elements common to all living organisms. You can look those up. As opposed to those evilutionist atheist scientists searching for life off of this planet, why aren’t the fundie ID’iot creation ministries looking to address your half-assed answer?

Biologists pretend to have an answer for everything? I would be surprised if you knew any biologists. Your nonsense claim is often described as a "strawman argument". Because you don't know, a strawman argument is a misrepresentation of someone's position. The misrepresentation is often a ludicrous misstatement of your opponent's argument or a gross generalization, absent fact. This, of course, is a tactic used when your own position is not supported. It means you can spend your energy toward what is a ridiculous argument that your opponent never proposed, instead of addressing the actual issue at hand.


----------



## abu afak

ChemEngineer said:


> I have half of an answer.
> Jupiter is a gas giant. It has no solid surface. The temperature is -190 Fahrenheit, much too cold for anything to survive.
> The temperature of Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, far hotter than any known life can exist on earth.
> 
> Biologists pretend to have an answer for everything, however simplistic and nonsensical it may be.  So why didn't "life" of some form alien to us "evolve"  on Jupiter and Venus?


Why did "god" make 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe uninhabitable to "his premier creation".. man?

And it's a chaotic unordered mess too.
Galaxies are colliding, Stars exploding.
These events, if life exists within many light years them, kill billions of beings.
Both Will happen to earth. 

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Both Will happen to earth.



What evidence do you have for your claim?


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Will happen to earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have for your claim?
Click to expand...

1. ALL stars end that way.

2. adromeda and mily way will collide - Google Search
and there are many galaxies currently in collision in the sky.
I guess you never look at astronomy pix.

`


----------



## Anomalism

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why haven't dolphin "evolved" to build telescopes?  Why hasn't life on Jupiter or Venus evolved to send us radio broadcast?
> 
> This evolution stuff sure is finnicky



Evolution isn't always on a path to extreme intelligence. People that don't believe evolution seem to not really understand it either. It's like y'all think we are the pinnacle and everything is fighting to be like us; that's not really accurate.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Will happen to earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have for your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. ALL stars end that way.
> 
> 2. adromeda and mily way will collide - Google Search
> and there are many galaxies currently in collision in the sky.
> I guess you never look at astronomy pix.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


How can you say all stars will end that way?  With what science do you base this on?

On my side, I have to have specific things happen before it's over.  One famous creation scientist thought it would happen in 2060, but not all the prophecies have happened yet.  God isn't a liar so these things must happen.

I don't want to read the wiki you linked.  Can you explain why YOU believe this will happen?


----------



## james bond

Anomalism said:


> Evolution isn't always on a path to extreme intelligence. People that don't believe evolution seem to not really understand it either. It's like y'all think we are the pinnacle and everything is fighting to be like us; that's not really accurate.



I think the truth is always the path to extreme intelligence.  Jesus supposedly never told a lie, so when I read what he said it just blows my mind.  For example,  He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female..."  Matthew 19:8

People are confused about the sexes today.  Yet, there are only two.  The rest of it is human and can be wrong.

The truth is our science are based on the top ideas of human beings who do not know everything and who often make mistakes.  That’s why science textbooks change from time to time, as people discover new evidence and realize that they were wrong about certain things.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.
> 
> "The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.
> 
> When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin murdered the poor birds and now they're all missing except for one tag.  Shabby way to treat them.
> 
> Here's an article from an atheist and pro homosexual website -- How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution. They confirm it wasn't Darwin who studied them, which was my point, but they're called "Darwin's finches"  when he really didn't give diddly.
> 
> "*Finches and Evolution  *
> 
> The _HMS Beagle_ continued to sail on to as far away lands as New Zealand before returning to England in 1836. It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common but different than the new Galapagos species."
> 
> Atheist and pro homosexual website link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such BS from the evolution crowd.  I think it's typical of their lies and propping up their stooge Darwin!!!
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> From the _careful and more accurate_ website you call a "Religioner" one,
> 
> "*Evaluating the Evidence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the whereabouts of the birds are unknown today, the saga speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the birds during Darwin’s lifetime – they weren’t. According to Frank Sulloway of the University of California, Berkeley, only one of the original finch tags is even known to still be in existence today.
> 
> Only Gould’s vague evidence, at best, supports the once-popular argument that the Galapagos finches provided Darwin scientific evidence for his theory. Importantly, though, Darwin never argued that the finches delivered supporting evidence for his theory. The iconic status of the Darwin finch saga, ironically, cannot be attributed to Darwin. As Sulloway explains –
> 
> “Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.”
> 
> Niles Eldredge, the curator for the American Museum of Natural History, notes that interest in the finches “came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos [in 1835], having paid these birds hardly any heed.” Erin Blakemore, writing for the Smithsonian Magazine, points- out –
> 
> “The story that those birds inspired the theory of evolution has long been doubted.”
> 
> While the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge has the largest inventory of specimens collected by Darwin, yet there is not a single Darwin finch in their collection.
> 
> The British Museum has four mockingbird specimens thought to have been collected by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands; however, the final fate of the nineteen specimens they acquired in 1855 is unknown. Only the one identification label, once on a finch, remains as the only evidence today."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such hypocrisy by the evolutionists!
> 
> The truth hurts doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.
> 
> Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.
> 
> The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.
> 
> The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online
> 
> "Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. _*The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution*_. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''
> 
> 
> I added the bolding for your use and education.
> 
> 
> I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.
Click to expand...


From your Confessions of a Darwinist link... " I had been shocked to find very little change in the 5 million years or so of history recorded by the main lineage of my Devonian trilobite."

Show evidence of 5 million years that there was "very little change."


----------



## ChemEngineer

The same anti-science which permeates Darwinism has been extended by godless Leftists (but I repeat myself).

When Leftists need it, Darwinism is very fast.  When they don't, Darwinism is very, very slow or non-existent.

"Global warming" has been contradicted so many times that they had to change their moniker to "climate change".  That covers everything, cold, hot, hurricanes, tornadoes, and probably acne.  When "global warming" is contradicted by observation and experiment, Leftists swear you "don't understand it," in much the same way they make claims of your intellectual inferiority regarding Darwinism.  Bear in mind these are the same Leftists who don't know which bathroom to use, male or female.  These are the same Leftists who go giddy over socialism, which murdered and starved 100,000,000 innocent humans and still counting.  These are the same Leftists who promote and champion the butchery of innocent unborn babies worldwide, 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 PER YEAR!  (www.worldometers.info)

How do they justify their butchery and insanity in their own minds?  The same way the Waffen SS Nazis did.  They're superior to you in every way.  Pride is evil  and it is the original sin.  It's not about me. My intelligence is immaterial. I'm not bragging about my intelligence. It is the Leftists, like the Waffen SS, who do so, constantly.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> The same anti-science which permeates Darwinism has been extended by godless Leftists (but I repeat myself).
> 
> When Leftists need it, Darwinism is very fast.  When they don't, Darwinism is very, very slow or non-existent.
> 
> "Global warming" has been contradicted so many times that they had to change their moniker to "climate change".  That covers everything, cold, hot, hurricanes, tornadoes, and probably acne.  When "global warming" is contradicted by observation and experiment, Leftists swear you "don't understand it," in much the same way they make claims of your intellectual inferiority regarding Darwinism.  Bear in mind these are the same Leftists who don't know which bathroom to use, male or female.  These are the same Leftists who go giddy over socialism, which murdered and starved 100,000,000 innocent humans and still counting.  These are the same Leftists who promote and champion the butchery of innocent unborn babies worldwide, 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 PER YEAR!  (www.worldometers.info)
> 
> How do they justify their butchery and insanity in their own minds?  The same way the Waffen SS Nazis did.  They're superior to you in every way.  Pride is evil  and it is the original sin.  It's not about me. My intelligence is immaterial. I'm not bragging about my intelligence. It is the Leftists, like the Waffen SS, who do so, constantly.


Angry ID’iot creationers typically use the term “Darwinism” as a slur against the entirety of science because, of course, science conflicts with religious tales and fables. It’s also typical (stereotypical) that ID’iot creationers will place “Darwinism” and Nazi Germany and attempt to link the two. What the ID’iot creationers fail to understand is that Nazi ideology was closely aligned with Christianity. The SS had the inscription _Gott mit uns_ (god is with us), on their belt buckles.




Lovely, lovely folks.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.
> 
> "The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.
> 
> When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin murdered the poor birds and now they're all missing except for one tag.  Shabby way to treat them.
> 
> Here's an article from an atheist and pro homosexual website -- How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution. They confirm it wasn't Darwin who studied them, which was my point, but they're called "Darwin's finches"  when he really didn't give diddly.
> 
> "*Finches and Evolution  *
> 
> The _HMS Beagle_ continued to sail on to as far away lands as New Zealand before returning to England in 1836. It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common but different than the new Galapagos species."
> 
> Atheist and pro homosexual website link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such BS from the evolution crowd.  I think it's typical of their lies and propping up their stooge Darwin!!!
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> From the _careful and more accurate_ website you call a "Religioner" one,
> 
> "*Evaluating the Evidence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the whereabouts of the birds are unknown today, the saga speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the birds during Darwin’s lifetime – they weren’t. According to Frank Sulloway of the University of California, Berkeley, only one of the original finch tags is even known to still be in existence today.
> 
> Only Gould’s vague evidence, at best, supports the once-popular argument that the Galapagos finches provided Darwin scientific evidence for his theory. Importantly, though, Darwin never argued that the finches delivered supporting evidence for his theory. The iconic status of the Darwin finch saga, ironically, cannot be attributed to Darwin. As Sulloway explains –
> 
> “Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.”
> 
> Niles Eldredge, the curator for the American Museum of Natural History, notes that interest in the finches “came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos [in 1835], having paid these birds hardly any heed.” Erin Blakemore, writing for the Smithsonian Magazine, points- out –
> 
> “The story that those birds inspired the theory of evolution has long been doubted.”
> 
> While the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge has the largest inventory of specimens collected by Darwin, yet there is not a single Darwin finch in their collection.
> 
> The British Museum has four mockingbird specimens thought to have been collected by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands; however, the final fate of the nineteen specimens they acquired in 1855 is unknown. Only the one identification label, once on a finch, remains as the only evidence today."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such hypocrisy by the evolutionists!
> 
> The truth hurts doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.
> 
> Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.
> 
> The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.
> 
> The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online
> 
> "Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. _*The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution*_. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''
> 
> 
> I added the bolding for your use and education.
> 
> 
> I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your Confessions of a Darwinist link... " I had been shocked to find very little change in the 5 million years or so of history recorded by the main lineage of my Devonian trilobite."
> 
> Show evidence of 5 million years that there was "very little change."
Click to expand...

The evidence for very little change would be the available evidence for very little change.

You can start here:Why did trilobites go extinct?

Could you possibly link us to something in the all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles to give us some historical (maybe hysterical) data?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.
> 
> "The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.
> 
> When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin murdered the poor birds and now they're all missing except for one tag.  Shabby way to treat them.
> 
> Here's an article from an atheist and pro homosexual website -- How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution. They confirm it wasn't Darwin who studied them, which was my point, but they're called "Darwin's finches"  when he really didn't give diddly.
> 
> "*Finches and Evolution  *
> 
> The _HMS Beagle_ continued to sail on to as far away lands as New Zealand before returning to England in 1836. It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common but different than the new Galapagos species."
> 
> Atheist and pro homosexual website link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such BS from the evolution crowd.  I think it's typical of their lies and propping up their stooge Darwin!!!
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> From the _careful and more accurate_ website you call a "Religioner" one,
> 
> "*Evaluating the Evidence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the whereabouts of the birds are unknown today, the saga speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the birds during Darwin’s lifetime – they weren’t. According to Frank Sulloway of the University of California, Berkeley, only one of the original finch tags is even known to still be in existence today.
> 
> Only Gould’s vague evidence, at best, supports the once-popular argument that the Galapagos finches provided Darwin scientific evidence for his theory. Importantly, though, Darwin never argued that the finches delivered supporting evidence for his theory. The iconic status of the Darwin finch saga, ironically, cannot be attributed to Darwin. As Sulloway explains –
> 
> “Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.”
> 
> Niles Eldredge, the curator for the American Museum of Natural History, notes that interest in the finches “came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos [in 1835], having paid these birds hardly any heed.” Erin Blakemore, writing for the Smithsonian Magazine, points- out –
> 
> “The story that those birds inspired the theory of evolution has long been doubted.”
> 
> While the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge has the largest inventory of specimens collected by Darwin, yet there is not a single Darwin finch in their collection.
> 
> The British Museum has four mockingbird specimens thought to have been collected by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands; however, the final fate of the nineteen specimens they acquired in 1855 is unknown. Only the one identification label, once on a finch, remains as the only evidence today."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such hypocrisy by the evolutionists!
> 
> The truth hurts doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.
> 
> Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.
> 
> The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.
> 
> The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online
> 
> "Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. _*The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution*_. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''
> 
> 
> I added the bolding for your use and education.
> 
> 
> I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your Confessions of a Darwinist link... " I had been shocked to find very little change in the 5 million years or so of history recorded by the main lineage of my Devonian trilobite."
> 
> Show evidence of 5 million years that there was "very little change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence for very little change would be the available evidence for very little change.
> 
> You can start here:Why did trilobites go extinct?
> 
> Could you possibly link us to something in the all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles to give us some historical (maybe hysterical) data?
Click to expand...


Oh, I see.  5 million years isn't anything so evos would expect little change LOL.  

The clue to how the trilobites became extinct is found in where they lived and where they were found.









						TRILOBITE FOSSILS - Creation Engineering Concepts
					

All fossil images and descriptions ©2017 all rights reserved. Contact us for permission policy. Trilobite Paralejuris Description: The Paralejuris fossil trilobite is 3″ long X 1 1/4″ wide X 9/16″ thick. The matrix is 3 1/2″ wide X 4 1/8″ long X 1″ thick. The head shield is convex and nearly...



					www.creationengineeringconcepts.org


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `



Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the *atheist in the gaps fallacy* that there exists no evidence for God's existence.  The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak.  Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.
> 
> "The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.
> 
> When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin murdered the poor birds and now they're all missing except for one tag.  Shabby way to treat them.
> 
> Here's an article from an atheist and pro homosexual website -- How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution. They confirm it wasn't Darwin who studied them, which was my point, but they're called "Darwin's finches"  when he really didn't give diddly.
> 
> "*Finches and Evolution  *
> 
> The _HMS Beagle_ continued to sail on to as far away lands as New Zealand before returning to England in 1836. It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common but different than the new Galapagos species."
> 
> Atheist and pro homosexual website link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such BS from the evolution crowd.  I think it's typical of their lies and propping up their stooge Darwin!!!
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> From the _careful and more accurate_ website you call a "Religioner" one,
> 
> "*Evaluating the Evidence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the whereabouts of the birds are unknown today, the saga speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the birds during Darwin’s lifetime – they weren’t. According to Frank Sulloway of the University of California, Berkeley, only one of the original finch tags is even known to still be in existence today.
> 
> Only Gould’s vague evidence, at best, supports the once-popular argument that the Galapagos finches provided Darwin scientific evidence for his theory. Importantly, though, Darwin never argued that the finches delivered supporting evidence for his theory. The iconic status of the Darwin finch saga, ironically, cannot be attributed to Darwin. As Sulloway explains –
> 
> “Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.”
> 
> Niles Eldredge, the curator for the American Museum of Natural History, notes that interest in the finches “came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos [in 1835], having paid these birds hardly any heed.” Erin Blakemore, writing for the Smithsonian Magazine, points- out –
> 
> “The story that those birds inspired the theory of evolution has long been doubted.”
> 
> While the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge has the largest inventory of specimens collected by Darwin, yet there is not a single Darwin finch in their collection.
> 
> The British Museum has four mockingbird specimens thought to have been collected by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands; however, the final fate of the nineteen specimens they acquired in 1855 is unknown. Only the one identification label, once on a finch, remains as the only evidence today."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such hypocrisy by the evolutionists!
> 
> The truth hurts doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.
> 
> Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.
> 
> The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.
> 
> The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online
> 
> "Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. _*The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution*_. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''
> 
> 
> I added the bolding for your use and education.
> 
> 
> I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your Confessions of a Darwinist link... " I had been shocked to find very little change in the 5 million years or so of history recorded by the main lineage of my Devonian trilobite."
> 
> Show evidence of 5 million years that there was "very little change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence for very little change would be the available evidence for very little change.
> 
> You can start here:Why did trilobites go extinct?
> 
> Could you possibly link us to something in the all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles to give us some historical (maybe hysterical) data?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.  5 million years isn't anything so evos would expect little change LOL.
> 
> The clue to how the trilobites became extinct is found in where they lived and where they were found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRILOBITE FOSSILS - Creation Engineering Concepts
> 
> 
> All fossil images and descriptions ©2017 all rights reserved. Contact us for permission policy. Trilobite Paralejuris Description: The Paralejuris fossil trilobite is 3″ long X 1 1/4″ wide X 9/16″ thick. The matrix is 3 1/2″ wide X 4 1/8″ long X 1″ thick. The head shield is convex and nearly...
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationengineeringconcepts.org
Click to expand...


How would a religo resolve a timeframe of 5 million years?

The ID’iot creation ministries wouldn’t have been able to explain the concepts to you but large scale evolutionary change would not necessarily occur without changes to environment and other external forces.

You make a mistake limiting your exposure to science with ID’iot creation ministries. As I demonstrated earlier, these charlatans are purveyors of fraud and deceit as was the case with the edited and parsed “quote” by Niles Eldridge you posted.

I couldn’t help but notice that the ID’iot creation ministry you used in your post identifies something they call “Biblical Paleontology” as opposed to Paleontology which is absent supernaturalism.

I couldn’t help but notice that a book he wrote is described as: “_In the Creation Dialogues, creation scientist J.D. Mitchell scientifically and biblically refutes naturalistic philosophy and explains the errors that result from attempts by Christians to accept atheistic and deistic ideas into their faith and worldview.”_

I couldn’t help but notice there is no attempt by Mitchell to christian’splain that he is not willing to refute the science data for biological evolution so he stands in the corner refuting something he calls “naturalistic philosophy”.

Now that’s pretty darn funny.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the *atheist in the gaps fallacy* that there exists no evidence for God's existence.  The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak.  Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.
Click to expand...

^^^ Behold, they’re so cute when they rattle on with their Christian’splaining saliva slinging tirades. It’s all about magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Ringtone

IsaacNewton said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By extension the 'god of the gaps' argument could be anything. "We don't know so Zeus did it". "Well we just don't know so it must be Zarathustra". Or "The Great Juju of the Sea".
> 
> But of course you are trying to argue rationally with people that are irrational. They have no interest in evidence to begin with. They believe what they believe 'just coz'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, like the Clown 'Boss', they claim "all evidence is subjective", and "everything" is evdience of god.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they attempt to couch everything as 'we don't know so therefore it could be anything'. As if you have to know 100% of something to know anything about it and any unknown in any field means 'it's obviously god'. It is so tedious and lazy to try to make an argument like this.
Click to expand...


Who is this _they_ you're prattling about?


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the *atheist in the gaps fallacy* that there exists no evidence for God's existence.  The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak.  Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.


Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?
LOL.
Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?
Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?

There are inorganic long-chain molecules that aren't living per se, but organize that way naturally.
We don't know (the words of a true truth finder) what the spark was yet, but like everything else that has given us this wonderful modern way of life, we are learning and still looking.

You're a classic low IQ God-Gapper.
I can wait for the truth- not accept a bunch of ignorant creation myths of thousands of (contradictory) gods.
Tell you what..
You god guys decide which one is your best shot (without killing each other), then come back and we'll talk again.

`
`


----------



## Ringtone

Ringtone said:


> Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the *atheist in the gaps fallacy* that there exists no evidence for God's existence.  The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak.  Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.





abu afak said:


> Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?



One thing at a time, slogan spouter.

The short answer:  for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge.  The long answer: 
*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*

I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.

Why do you believe it's possible?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the *atheist in the gaps fallacy* that there exists no evidence for God's existence.  The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak.  Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing at a time, slogan spouter.
> 
> The short answer:  for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge.  The long answer:
> *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*
> 
> I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.
> 
> Why do you believe it's possible?
Click to expand...

Oh, lovely. A self-serving fundie crank trying to establish a ministry.

Do you offer Kool-aid at your sermons?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.
> 
> "The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.
> 
> When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin murdered the poor birds and now they're all missing except for one tag.  Shabby way to treat them.
> 
> Here's an article from an atheist and pro homosexual website -- How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution. They confirm it wasn't Darwin who studied them, which was my point, but they're called "Darwin's finches"  when he really didn't give diddly.
> 
> "*Finches and Evolution  *
> 
> The _HMS Beagle_ continued to sail on to as far away lands as New Zealand before returning to England in 1836. It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common but different than the new Galapagos species."
> 
> Atheist and pro homosexual website link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such BS from the evolution crowd.  I think it's typical of their lies and propping up their stooge Darwin!!!
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> From the _careful and more accurate_ website you call a "Religioner" one,
> 
> "*Evaluating the Evidence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the whereabouts of the birds are unknown today, the saga speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the birds during Darwin’s lifetime – they weren’t. According to Frank Sulloway of the University of California, Berkeley, only one of the original finch tags is even known to still be in existence today.
> 
> Only Gould’s vague evidence, at best, supports the once-popular argument that the Galapagos finches provided Darwin scientific evidence for his theory. Importantly, though, Darwin never argued that the finches delivered supporting evidence for his theory. The iconic status of the Darwin finch saga, ironically, cannot be attributed to Darwin. As Sulloway explains –
> 
> “Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.”
> 
> Niles Eldredge, the curator for the American Museum of Natural History, notes that interest in the finches “came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos [in 1835], having paid these birds hardly any heed.” Erin Blakemore, writing for the Smithsonian Magazine, points- out –
> 
> “The story that those birds inspired the theory of evolution has long been doubted.”
> 
> While the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge has the largest inventory of specimens collected by Darwin, yet there is not a single Darwin finch in their collection.
> 
> The British Museum has four mockingbird specimens thought to have been collected by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands; however, the final fate of the nineteen specimens they acquired in 1855 is unknown. Only the one identification label, once on a finch, remains as the only evidence today."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such hypocrisy by the evolutionists!
> 
> The truth hurts doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.
> 
> Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.
> 
> The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.
> 
> The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online
> 
> "Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. _*The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution*_. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''
> 
> 
> I added the bolding for your use and education.
> 
> 
> I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your Confessions of a Darwinist link... " I had been shocked to find very little change in the 5 million years or so of history recorded by the main lineage of my Devonian trilobite."
> 
> Show evidence of 5 million years that there was "very little change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence for very little change would be the available evidence for very little change.
> 
> You can start here:Why did trilobites go extinct?
> 
> Could you possibly link us to something in the all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles to give us some historical (maybe hysterical) data?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.  5 million years isn't anything so evos would expect little change LOL.
> 
> The clue to how the trilobites became extinct is found in where they lived and where they were found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRILOBITE FOSSILS - Creation Engineering Concepts
> 
> 
> All fossil images and descriptions ©2017 all rights reserved. Contact us for permission policy. Trilobite Paralejuris Description: The Paralejuris fossil trilobite is 3″ long X 1 1/4″ wide X 9/16″ thick. The matrix is 3 1/2″ wide X 4 1/8″ long X 1″ thick. The head shield is convex and nearly...
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationengineeringconcepts.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would a religo resolve a timeframe of 5 million years?
> 
> The ID’iot creation ministries wouldn’t have been able to explain the concepts to you but large scale evolutionary change would not necessarily occur without changes to environment and other external forces.
> 
> You make a mistake limiting your exposure to science with ID’iot creation ministries. As I demonstrated earlier, these charlatans are purveyors of fraud and deceit as was the case with the edited and parsed “quote” by Niles Eldridge you posted.
> 
> I couldn’t help but notice that the ID’iot creation ministry you used in your post identifies something they call “Biblical Paleontology” as opposed to Paleontology which is absent supernaturalism.
> 
> I couldn’t help but notice that a book he wrote is described as: “_In the Creation Dialogues, creation scientist J.D. Mitchell scientifically and biblically refutes naturalistic philosophy and explains the errors that result from attempts by Christians to accept atheistic and deistic ideas into their faith and worldview.”_
> 
> I couldn’t help but notice there is no attempt by Mitchell to christian’splain that he is not willing to refute the science data for biological evolution so he stands in the corner refuting something he calls “naturalistic philosophy”.
> 
> Now that’s pretty darn funny.
Click to expand...


We are creationists and there is no time frame of five million years allocated to trilobites or any other creature.  That only happened because of Darwin and he was wrong about almost everything.  Like I said, before Darwin people believed the Earth and universe were around six thousand years old and its still around that number.  One of the evidence that shows Darwin was wrong is there were no cave people.

As for Eldridge, if he did refute Darwin's finches story, then why didn't he and his people correct that chart that is posted on general articles and a lot science text books?  Why isn't it corrected if Darwin never studied them on Galapalagos?  The website that I use still gives Darwin credit for studying finches on Galapalagos -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090201_darwinday.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> One thing at a time, slogan spouter.
> 
> The short answer:  for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge.  The long answer:
> *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*
> 
> I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.
> 
> Why do you believe it's possible?


No, No
You already lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise.
me:
*Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?
LOL.
Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?
Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense? *​

So you tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden.
You said something was impossible, but it's at least AS possible as your fantasy.
*ANSWER your busted claim/premise.
You couldn't.
You already lost.*

Your article:
I hardly know where to start on the premise errors and fallacies of your political hang-ups/Mental illness about "Atheists."
93% of the NAS do not believe in god.
97% of the UK's Royal Fellow the same.
"" Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks.  ""
Really?
Your article is garbage. An unscientific grudge against ATHEISTS, NOT refutation of any evolution Science.
IOW, you are more concerned with saving your Religious beliefs/god than any scientific point: a Crusade against unbelievers!

ID is stealth creationism. No more... and discredited.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate, altho the former could be viewed as an extension/leap, but unnecessary.
Abio is still speculative/unknown, while evolution is a Fact once life started.

Evolution has overwhelming evidence, god/gods have NONE.
In fact, Tens of thousands of gods have gone down the drain as science has put them out of business and enlightened us all.

I've made many previous entries/OPs on this over the years.
Here's a one by the Editor-in-Chief of Sciam.





						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Lately we've had a Bimbo Outbreak here, with kweationist klowns and konspiwicysts starting whacky strings. Virtually all the challenges are answered here briefly.  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense John Rennie, Editor in Chief Scientific American - June 2002 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




And another..





						More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
					

Another Evidence of Evolution. Just part of an Overwhelming body of such. One rarely mentioned but very telling. Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




and many more which help confirm Evolution.

Read em rookie.
Get back to me with answers and then I'll link more.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?



First, spontaneous generation has been debunked by the scientific method already.  Abiogenesis is the same as SG.  Why do you believe something that has never happened?


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> First, spontaneous generation has been debunked by the scientific method already.  Abiogenesis is the same as SG.  Why do you believe something that has never happened?


Matter becoming life is not "spontaneous generation." (it's more like spontaneous combustion)
Nothing becoming god (whatever the hell that is) IS spontaneous generation.
You lose you STUPID MONKEY.
`


----------



## Ringtone

Ringtone said:


> One thing at a time, slogan spouter.
> 
> The short answer:  for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge.  The long answer:
> *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*
> 
> I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.
> 
> Why do you believe it's possible?





abu afak said:


> No, No
> You already lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise.
> me:​*Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?*​*LOL.*​*Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?*​*Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense? *​


No, no.

You didn't answer the question at all.  You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, _ad hominem, _appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.

Once again. . . .

Why do _you_ believe abiogenesis is possible?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life.  Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people.  The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum.  He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.
> 
> First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own.  It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.
> 
> One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life.  They have not been able to do it.  They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe.  It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang.  Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.
> 
> Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters.  Life could not have happened by chance.
> 
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.
> 
> Fine tuning theory is very powerful.  It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it.  Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now.  I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning.  If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God.  Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
> 
> The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.
> 
> Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing.  Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.
> 
> "The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the _HMS Beagle_ started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.
> 
> When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin murdered the poor birds and now they're all missing except for one tag.  Shabby way to treat them.
> 
> Here's an article from an atheist and pro homosexual website -- How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution. They confirm it wasn't Darwin who studied them, which was my point, but they're called "Darwin's finches"  when he really didn't give diddly.
> 
> "*Finches and Evolution  *
> 
> The _HMS Beagle_ continued to sail on to as far away lands as New Zealand before returning to England in 1836. It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common but different than the new Galapagos species."
> 
> Atheist and pro homosexual website link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such BS from the evolution crowd.  I think it's typical of their lies and propping up their stooge Darwin!!!
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> From the _careful and more accurate_ website you call a "Religioner" one,
> 
> "*Evaluating the Evidence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the whereabouts of the birds are unknown today, the saga speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the birds during Darwin’s lifetime – they weren’t. According to Frank Sulloway of the University of California, Berkeley, only one of the original finch tags is even known to still be in existence today.
> 
> Only Gould’s vague evidence, at best, supports the once-popular argument that the Galapagos finches provided Darwin scientific evidence for his theory. Importantly, though, Darwin never argued that the finches delivered supporting evidence for his theory. The iconic status of the Darwin finch saga, ironically, cannot be attributed to Darwin. As Sulloway explains –
> 
> “Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.”
> 
> Niles Eldredge, the curator for the American Museum of Natural History, notes that interest in the finches “came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos [in 1835], having paid these birds hardly any heed.” Erin Blakemore, writing for the Smithsonian Magazine, points- out –
> 
> “The story that those birds inspired the theory of evolution has long been doubted.”
> 
> While the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge has the largest inventory of specimens collected by Darwin, yet there is not a single Darwin finch in their collection.
> 
> The British Museum has four mockingbird specimens thought to have been collected by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands; however, the final fate of the nineteen specimens they acquired in 1855 is unknown. Only the one identification label, once on a finch, remains as the only evidence today."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now
> 
> 
> As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.darwinthenandnow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such hypocrisy by the evolutionists!
> 
> The truth hurts doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.
> 
> Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.
> 
> The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.
> 
> The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online
> 
> "Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. _*The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution*_. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''
> 
> 
> I added the bolding for your use and education.
> 
> 
> I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your Confessions of a Darwinist link... " I had been shocked to find very little change in the 5 million years or so of history recorded by the main lineage of my Devonian trilobite."
> 
> Show evidence of 5 million years that there was "very little change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence for very little change would be the available evidence for very little change.
> 
> You can start here:Why did trilobites go extinct?
> 
> Could you possibly link us to something in the all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles to give us some historical (maybe hysterical) data?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.  5 million years isn't anything so evos would expect little change LOL.
> 
> The clue to how the trilobites became extinct is found in where they lived and where they were found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRILOBITE FOSSILS - Creation Engineering Concepts
> 
> 
> All fossil images and descriptions ©2017 all rights reserved. Contact us for permission policy. Trilobite Paralejuris Description: The Paralejuris fossil trilobite is 3″ long X 1 1/4″ wide X 9/16″ thick. The matrix is 3 1/2″ wide X 4 1/8″ long X 1″ thick. The head shield is convex and nearly...
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationengineeringconcepts.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would a religo resolve a timeframe of 5 million years?
> 
> The ID’iot creation ministries wouldn’t have been able to explain the concepts to you but large scale evolutionary change would not necessarily occur without changes to environment and other external forces.
> 
> You make a mistake limiting your exposure to science with ID’iot creation ministries. As I demonstrated earlier, these charlatans are purveyors of fraud and deceit as was the case with the edited and parsed “quote” by Niles Eldridge you posted.
> 
> I couldn’t help but notice that the ID’iot creation ministry you used in your post identifies something they call “Biblical Paleontology” as opposed to Paleontology which is absent supernaturalism.
> 
> I couldn’t help but notice that a book he wrote is described as: “_In the Creation Dialogues, creation scientist J.D. Mitchell scientifically and biblically refutes naturalistic philosophy and explains the errors that result from attempts by Christians to accept atheistic and deistic ideas into their faith and worldview.”_
> 
> I couldn’t help but notice there is no attempt by Mitchell to christian’splain that he is not willing to refute the science data for biological evolution so he stands in the corner refuting something he calls “naturalistic philosophy”.
> 
> Now that’s pretty darn funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are creationists and there is no time frame of five million years allocated to trilobites or any other creature.  That only happened because of Darwin and he was wrong about almost everything.  Like I said, before Darwin people believed the Earth and universe were around six thousand years old and its still around that number.  One of the evidence that shows Darwin was wrong is there were no cave people.
> 
> As for Eldridge, if he did refute Darwin's finches story, then why didn't he and his people correct that chart that is posted on general articles and a lot science text books?  Why isn't it corrected if Darwin never studied them on Galapalagos?  The website that I use still gives Darwin credit for studying finches on Galapalagos -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090201_darwinday.
Click to expand...

You certainly are an ID'iot creationer. You espouse the fraud so common to ID'iot creationer ministries. That ID'iot creationers refuse to accept timelines greater than 6,000 years is expected. But then to flail your Pom Poms for conspiracy theories that represent science as false and in error because it conflicts with the magic and supernaturalism that is a part of fundamentalist religious belief is not offering anything credible.

What exactly is ''Darwin people''?

To suggest that people (what people - ''Darwin people''?) before Darwin believed the earth was 6,000 years old is false and ridiculous. Long before Darwin, people understood that fossil remains were a contradiction to the Noah fable.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing at a time, slogan spouter.
> 
> The short answer:  for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge.  The long answer:
> *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*
> 
> I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.
> 
> Why do you believe it's possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, No
> You already lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise.
> me:​*Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?*​*LOL.*​*Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?*​*Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense? *​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no.
> 
> You didn't answer the question at all.  You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, _ad hominem, _appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.
> 
> Once again. . . .
> 
> Why do _you_ believe abiogenesis is possible?
Click to expand...

Well, referring to your gods as ''transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness....because I say so'' is a rather obvious example of ''hysterically incoherent string of slogans, _ad hominem, _appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition...'

Interesting how often you utterly deconstruct your own flaming tirades with flaming tirades. 

Carry on.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> No, no.
> 
> You didn't answer the question at all.  You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, _ad hominem, _appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.
> 
> Once again. . . .
> 
> *Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?*


No No
Again, *it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.*

You already Lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise/assertion.
me:​*Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?*​*LOL.*​*Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?*​*Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?*​

So Twice now you've tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden. YOUR BURDEN for YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.

It's still on you Reverend anti-Atheist-Clown.
YOU had NO answer to YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
All that laughable Bury-em-with-Bullshit trash you write and you cannot back your assertion.


`


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no.
> 
> You didn't answer the question at all.  You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, _ad hominem, _appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.
> 
> Once again. . . .
> 
> *Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?*
> 
> 
> 
> No No
> Again, *it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.*
> 
> You already Lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise/assertion.
> me:​*Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?*​*LOL.*​*Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?*​*Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?*​
> 
> So Twice now you've tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden. YOUR BURDEN for YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
> 
> It's still on you Reverend anti-Atheist-Clown.
> YOU had NO answer to YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
> All that laughable Bury-em-with-Bullshit trash you write and you cannot back your assertion.
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


You're a slogan-spouting imbecile of a mindless fool who really doesn't have the slightest clue why you believe what you do.  You're dismissed, relegated to the Hollie Asylum of US Message Board.  LOL!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no.
> 
> You didn't answer the question at all.  You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, _ad hominem, _appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.
> 
> Once again. . . .
> 
> *Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?*
> 
> 
> 
> No No
> Again, *it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.*
> 
> You already Lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise/assertion.
> me:​*Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?*​*LOL.*​*Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?*​*Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?*​
> 
> So Twice now you've tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden. YOUR BURDEN for YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
> 
> It's still on you Reverend anti-Atheist-Clown.
> YOU had NO answer to YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
> All that laughable Bury-em-with-Bullshit trash you write and you cannot back your assertion.
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a slogan-spouting imbecile of a mindless fool who really doesn't have the slightest clue why you believe what you do.  You're dismissed, relegated to the Hollie Asylum of US Message Board.  LOL!
> 
> View attachment 441800
Click to expand...

Interesting just how quickly the hyper-religious run for shelter when their sacred cows are brought to slaughter.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no.
> 
> You didn't answer the question at all.  You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, _ad hominem, _appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.
> 
> Once again. . . .
> 
> *Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?*
> 
> 
> 
> No No
> Again, *it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.*
> 
> You already Lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise/assertion.
> me:​*Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?*​*LOL.*​*Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?*​*Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?*​
> 
> So Twice now you've tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden. YOUR BURDEN for YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
> 
> It's still on you Reverend anti-Atheist-Clown.
> YOU had NO answer to YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
> All that laughable Bury-em-with-Bullshit trash you write and you cannot back your assertion.
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a slogan-spouting imbecile of a mindless fool who really doesn't have the slightest clue why you believe what you do.  You're dismissed, relegated to the Hollie Asylum of US Message Board.  LOL!
> 
> View attachment 441800
Click to expand...

*IOW, you still can't answer.
You lost.
I nailed you on trying the burden shift.
You're not smart enough to pull shit with me.
Not to mention your baseless and ill-fated religious agenda/hang up.
What a ****** up website/article too. Loony tunes with footnotes as some sort of try for credibility *


`


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> *IOW, you still can't answer.*



Why, precisely, do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is possible?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 419199
> 
> God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 437428
> 
> Is that why scientists had to steal the creation story?
> 
> *Roman Catholic Version
> Genesis Chapter 1:1-10*
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
> 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
> 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
> 5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.
> 6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
> 7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
> 8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.
> 9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
> 10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online
> 
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.catholic.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's unfalsifiable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Scientists didn't steal anything. They followed the evidence, then the religious nutters fraudulently retrofit their iron aged fairy tales to scientific knowledge. Same thing, every time.


----------



## abu afak

No No
Again, *it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.*

You already Lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise/assertion.

I Challenged YOUR GOOFY Assertion first.
You Could NOT answer so you DISHONESTLY  tried the 'burden shift
​- - - - - - - - - -
*Me:*​*Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?*​
*LOL.*​
*Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?*​
*Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?*​- - - - - - -

​So THRICE now you've tried to turn the tables on Your illogic/shift the burden. YOUR BURDEN for YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.​
It's still on you Reverend anti-Atheist-Clown.​
YOU had NO answer to YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.​
All that laughable Bury-em-with-Bullshit trash you write and you cannot back your assertion. ​
​​*
EDIT: Note the the BEATEN CLOWN 'Ringtone' below.​Trying to twist the debate.​HE LOST.​From here on out I will answer him only when I want tom BUMP MY THREAD/MY IDEOLOGY.​His loser last-wording will be helping me.​He doesn't know tactics either, he just knows he's in pain and is trying to bury it.​*​​`​


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> No No
> Again, *it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.*


No, no.

I answered your stupid question about God.  I also answered your question about abiogenesis in detail.

Why do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is true?
Why do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is true?
Why do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is true?
Why do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is true?
Why do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is true?
Why do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is true?
Why do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is true?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Why do _you_ believe that abiogenesis is true?


Of course it is true. It is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life, then there was life. Abiogenesis is what connects these two states.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 419199
> 
> God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 437428
> 
> Is that why scientists had to steal the creation story?
> 
> *Roman Catholic Version
> Genesis Chapter 1:1-10*
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
> 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
> 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
> 5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.
> 6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
> 7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
> 8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.
> 9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
> 10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online
> 
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.catholic.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's unfalsifiable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists didn't steal anything. They followed the evidence, then the religious nutters fraudulently retrofit their iron aged fairy tales to scientific knowledge. Same thing, every time.
Click to expand...







Yeah. They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Ringtone

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 419199
> 
> God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 437428
> 
> Is that why scientists had to steal the creation story?
> 
> *Roman Catholic Version
> Genesis Chapter 1:1-10*
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
> 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
> 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
> 5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.
> 6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
> 7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
> 8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.
> 9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
> 10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online
> 
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.catholic.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's unfalsifiable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists didn't steal anything. They followed the evidence, then the religious nutters fraudulently retrofit their iron aged fairy tales to scientific knowledge. Same thing, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 442027
> 
> Yeah. They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


LOL!  Another imbecile.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course it is true. It is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life, then there was life. Abiogenesis is what connects these two states.



You are making a false premise, false conclusion error.

It isn't true because God said he made life on Earth per Genesis.  No where else.  An that's what we find.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Ringtone said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 419199
> 
> God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 437428
> 
> Is that why scientists had to steal the creation story?
> 
> *Roman Catholic Version
> Genesis Chapter 1:1-10*
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
> 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
> 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
> 5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.
> 6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
> 7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
> 8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.
> 9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
> 10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online
> 
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.catholic.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's unfalsifiable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists didn't steal anything. They followed the evidence, then the religious nutters fraudulently retrofit their iron aged fairy tales to scientific knowledge. Same thing, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 442027
> 
> Yeah. They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Another imbecile.
Click to expand...






I'm glad that you admit your inadequacy.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Ringtone

ChemEngineer said:


> The same anti-science which permeates Darwinism has been extended by godless Leftists (but I repeat myself).
> 
> When Leftists need it, Darwinism is very fast.  When they don't, Darwinism is very, very slow or non-existent.
> 
> "Global warming" has been contradicted so many times that they had to change their moniker to "climate change".  That covers everything, cold, hot, hurricanes, tornadoes, and probably acne.  When "global warming" is contradicted by observation and experiment, Leftists swear you "don't understand it," in much the same way they make claims of your intellectual inferiority regarding Darwinism.  Bear in mind these are the same Leftists who don't know which bathroom to use, male or female.  These are the same Leftists who go giddy over socialism, which murdered and starved 100,000,000 innocent humans and still counting.  These are the same Leftists who promote and champion the butchery of innocent unborn babies worldwide, 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 PER YEAR!  (www.worldometers.info)
> 
> How do they justify their butchery and insanity in their own minds?  The same way the Waffen SS Nazis did.  They're superior to you in every way.  Pride is evil  and it is the original sin.  It's not about me. My intelligence is immaterial. I'm not bragging about my intelligence. It is the Leftists, like the Waffen SS, who do so, constantly.


----------



## Ringtone

Damaged Eagle said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 419199
> 
> God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 437428
> 
> Is that why scientists had to steal the creation story?
> 
> *Roman Catholic Version
> Genesis Chapter 1:1-10*
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
> 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
> 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
> 5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.
> 6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
> 7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
> 8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.
> 9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
> 10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online
> 
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.catholic.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's unfalsifiable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists didn't steal anything. They followed the evidence, then the religious nutters fraudulently retrofit their iron aged fairy tales to scientific knowledge. Same thing, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 442027
> 
> Yeah. They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Another imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 442306
> 
> I'm glad that you admit your inadequacy.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


That post was not intended for you.  I hit the wrong reply button.  Disregard.


----------



## abu afak

The newly active Ringtone is Nothing but another God of the Gaps-er.
(as almost everyone with a brain has noticed)
Suggesting what is likely or not, or that because we don't know/know YET, it must be god.

Really the same Neanderthal/Paleolithic asshole who came up with the Lightning and fire 'gods' for the same reason.

`


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> The newly active Ringtone is Nothing but another God of the Gaps-er.
> (as almost everyone with a brain has noticed)
> Suggesting what is likely or not, or that because we don't know/know YET, it must be god.
> 
> Really the same Neanderthal/Paleolithic asshole who came up with the Lightning and fire 'gods' for the same reason.
> 
> `







The mindless slogan spouter abu afak


----------



## ChemEngineer

Ringtone said:


> View attachment 443976
> The mindless slogan spouter abu afak



Hilarious!  Nevertheless, you waste your time and everyone else's by responding to nonsense.
Go from the presence of a foolish man is good Biblical advice.   Life is too short to waste on trolls.
I tell this to James Bond and he never learns.  Come on man.


----------



## abu afak

WOW!
WTF!
"Miracle relative to man's Redemption," no less, is in the mix/science section now!

No-Ringtone is a Religious FREAK proselytizing, not arguing science.

"Ramifications of the imperatives"?
WTF
"Principles of Eternalism and sufficient causation"?
WTF

Deluded Gibberish!



			
				Ringtone said:
			
		

> Actually, you have, just not in the sense that you mean.
> It is  manifest from *the Ramifications of the Imperatives of logic, mathematics, ontology* and cosmological physics that the Universe (or physical world) began to exist in the finite past.  The only rational explanation for its existence per the *principles of eternalism and sufficient causation is God.*  Though it's *not the most important miracle relative to man's redemption,* the existence of the Universe itself is the greatest miracle, i.e., the greatest display of God's existence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.


No, that's stupid. Else you biblical "scholars" would have saved them the trouble. No, you guys just like to retrofit hard earned knowledge to your fairy tales, but everyone else sees how fraudulent that is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 419199
> 
> God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 437428
> 
> Is that why scientists had to steal the creation story?
> 
> *Roman Catholic Version
> Genesis Chapter 1:1-10*
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
> 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
> 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
> 5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.
> 6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
> 7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
> 8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.
> 9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
> 10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online
> 
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.catholic.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's unfalsifiable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists didn't steal anything. They followed the evidence, then the religious nutters fraudulently retrofit their iron aged fairy tales to scientific knowledge. Same thing, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 442027
> 
> Yeah. They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Another imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 442306
> 
> I'm glad that you admit your inadequacy.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Oh look...the whiny religious freak degenerates into a childlike state...again...


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's stupid. Else you biblical "scholars" would have saved them the trouble. No, you guys just like to retrofit hard earned knowledge to your fairy tales, but everyone else sees how fraudulent that is.
Click to expand...






Perhaps the scientists should have stayed with the steady state theory instead. The Book Of Genesis has been there for all to see for countless centuries so it would appear that the hard earned knowledge you're talking about isn't so hard earned on the scientists part.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 419199
> 
> God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 437428
> 
> Is that why scientists had to steal the creation story?
> 
> *Roman Catholic Version
> Genesis Chapter 1:1-10*
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
> 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
> 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
> 5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.
> 6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
> 7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
> 8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.
> 9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
> 10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online
> 
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.catholic.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's unfalsifiable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists didn't steal anything. They followed the evidence, then the religious nutters fraudulently retrofit their iron aged fairy tales to scientific knowledge. Same thing, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 442027
> 
> Yeah. They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Another imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 442306
> 
> I'm glad that you admit your inadequacy.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look...the whiny religious freak degenerates into a childlike state...again...
Click to expand...






I'm not the one descending into name calling to protect my argument.

Obviously you're now attempting to deflect like a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Maybe the scientists could come up with the stolen cookie theory of universal beginning next.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's stupid. Else you biblical "scholars" would have saved them the trouble. No, you guys just like to retrofit hard earned knowledge to your fairy tales, but everyone else sees how fraudulent that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 445506
> 
> Perhaps the scientists should have stayed with the steady state theory instead. The Book Of Genesis has been there for all to see for countless centuries so it would appear that the hard earned knowledge you're talking about isn't so hard earned on the scientists part.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

The Egyptian Book of the Dead has been around longer...er so it must be truerer...er than the Bible.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's stupid. Else you biblical "scholars" would have saved them the trouble. No, you guys just like to retrofit hard earned knowledge to your fairy tales, but everyone else sees how fraudulent that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 445506
> 
> Perhaps the scientists should have stayed with the steady state theory instead. The Book Of Genesis has been there for all to see for countless centuries so it would appear that the hard earned knowledge you're talking about isn't so hard earned on the scientists part.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Egyptian Book of the Dead has been around longer...er so it must be truerer...er than the Bible.
Click to expand...






Really??? Is this where we're going now?

How long do you think the Book Of Genesis had been around prior to being incorporated into the Bible from the Jewish people? 

Do you know?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's stupid. Else you biblical "scholars" would have saved them the trouble. No, you guys just like to retrofit hard earned knowledge to your fairy tales, but everyone else sees how fraudulent that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 445506
> 
> Perhaps the scientists should have stayed with the steady state theory instead. The Book Of Genesis has been there for all to see for countless centuries so it would appear that the hard earned knowledge you're talking about isn't so hard earned on the scientists part.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Egyptian Book of the Dead has been around longer...er so it must be truerer...er than the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 445519
> 
> Really??? Is this where we're going now?
> 
> How long do you think the Book Of Genesis had been around prior to being incorporated into the Bible from the Jewish people?
> 
> Do you know?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

Well, ya' got me there. I was referring to the the part of Christian theology that wasn't stolen from the Jewish people.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They followed the evidence right to the opening lines of Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's stupid. Else you biblical "scholars" would have saved them the trouble. No, you guys just like to retrofit hard earned knowledge to your fairy tales, but everyone else sees how fraudulent that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 445506
> 
> Perhaps the scientists should have stayed with the steady state theory instead. The Book Of Genesis has been there for all to see for countless centuries so it would appear that the hard earned knowledge you're talking about isn't so hard earned on the scientists part.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Yet scientists had to do all the work of proving the fantasies of genesis to be ass backwards wrong. And now you frauds claim it was right? You are insane.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yet scientists had to do all the work of proving the fantasies of genesis to be ass backwards wrong. And now you frauds claim it was right? You are insane.








You have no definitive proof the scientists are right. Their theory says in the first few microseconds of creation the laws of physics did not apply. The only thing that could possibly do that is God. 

Have physicists even proven that the universe existed a nanosecond ago or are we supposed to take that on faith?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> You


The fact that the adam and eve fairy tale never happened is as "proven" wrong as anything outside of mathematics can be proven. But you are trying to squeeze god in there, as nothing can be "100% proven" in science.  How ironic...you just perfectly demonstrated the thread topic and the fraud it represents. Thank you, your work is done here.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the adam and eve fairy tale never happened is as "proven" wrong as anything outside of mathematics can be proven. But you are trying to squeeze god in there, as nothing can be "100% proven" in science.  How ironic...you just perfectly demonstrated the thread topic and the fraud it represents. Thank you, your work is done here.
Click to expand...






Your the one who says science is the answer to everything.

Now you wish to say that science can prove nothing substantial?

Sounds like you're just attempting to fill in gaps with more gaps to me.

Sigh! I do wish you would make up your mind.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Your the one who says science is the answer to everything.


I have never once said or thought that. This is you soothing yourself.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one who says science is the answer to everything.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once said or thought that. This is you soothing yourself.
Click to expand...





Oh surely you did since God in your mind could not have had anything to do with it.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## abu afak

Damaged Eagle said:


> *Your the one who says science is the answer to everything.*
> 
> Now you wish to say that science can prove nothing substantial?
> 
> Sounds like you're just attempting to fill in gaps with more gaps to me.
> 
> Sigh! I do wish you would make up your mind.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


*You ******* MORON
This Thread IS "God of the gaps."
MEANING... WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING (GAP) YET, BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO FABRICATE A GOD AS THE CAUSE.*
and for that you have NO Answer, and 'god' is not a valid one, Not in evidence, and who created 'him'?
DUH!
DUH!
DUH!


`


----------



## Damaged Eagle

abu afak said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your the one who says science is the answer to everything.*
> 
> Now you wish to say that science can prove nothing substantial?
> 
> Sounds like you're just attempting to fill in gaps with more gaps to me.
> 
> Sigh! I do wish you would make up your mind.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You ******* MORON
> This Thread IS "God of the gaps."
> MEANING... WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING (GAP) YET, BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO FABRICATE A GOD AS THE CAUSE.*
> and for that you have NO Answer, and 'god' is not a valid one, Not in evidence, and who created 'him'?
> DUH!
> DUH!
> DUH!
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...






Yet it would seem that your evidence can not be proven without God's guiding hand since you have to take it on faith that anything prior to a nanosecond ago existed in the first place.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

abu afak said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it would seem that your evidence can not be proven without God's guiding hand since you have to take it on faith that anything prior to a nanosecond ago existed in the first place.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> Listen you 12 IQ ****head.
> I showed what a complete moron you were in the last.
> No answer and their remains no 'god' in evidence.
> 
> `
Click to expand...





You haven't shown me anything except that you're abusive. 

Your failure to adjust to your situation only proves your inability to cope due to your lack of knowledge on how to address the reality confronting you.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING (GAP) YET, BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO FABRICATE A GOD AS THE CAUSE.



Get real, dummkopf!  You have a _gap_ in your brain. It's called a hole in your head .

The atheist scientists created multiverses because of the fine tuning facts (which they discovered).  That's stupid and fake science of the gaps.

Nobody created the Christian God as it was explained to us by the Bible, by the Apostles, and Jesus the Son of Man himself.  History and science backs it up while nothing backs up how space and time started naturally by itself.  Nothing backs up abiogenesis.  You have nothing and will always have nothing but feces science.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *Nobody created the Christian God as it was explained to us by the Bible, by the Apostles, and Jesus* the Son of Man himself.  History and science backs it up while nothing backs up how space and time started naturally by itself.  Nothing backs up abiogenesis.  You have nothing and will always have nothing but feces science.


Circular Reasoning

*CIRCULAR REASONING*
_circulus in demonstrando_
......​Description: A type of reasoning in which *the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition*, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.​This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​*This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune* -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” *Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail*.​

There is No proof of the divinity of Jesus outside the the largely mythical NT.



`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> _circulus in demonstrando_



>>History and science backs it (creation) up while nothing backs up how space and time started naturally by itself. Nothing backs up abiogenesis.<<

You didn't read far enough due to the hole in your brain.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> _circulus in demonstrando_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>History and science backs it (creation) up while nothing backs up how space and time started naturally by itself. Nothing backs up abiogenesis.<<
> 
> You didn't read far enough due to the hole in your brain.
Click to expand...

Nothing in science or history “backs up” supernaturalism.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *You ******* MORON
> This Thread IS "God of the gaps."
> MEANING... WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING (GAP) YET, BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO FABRICATE A GOD AS THE CAUSE.*
> and for that you have NO Answer, and 'god' is not a valid one, Not in evidence, and who created 'him'?
> DUH!
> DUH!
> DUH!



Nobody FABRICATED God like atheist Darwin did with evolution.  We have been providing the answers and the evidence, but it just through that hole in your head.  Your comment just shows that you do not understand solid logic.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You ******* MORON
> This Thread IS "God of the gaps."
> MEANING... WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING (GAP) YET, BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO FABRICATE A GOD AS THE CAUSE.*
> and for that you have NO Answer, and 'god' is not a valid one, Not in evidence, and who created 'him'?
> DUH!
> DUH!
> DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody FABRICATED God like atheist Darwin did with evolution.  We have been providing the answers and the evidence, but it just through that hole in your head.  Your comment just shows that you do not understand solid logic.
Click to expand...

Solid logic like talking snakes?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You ******* MORON
> This Thread IS "God of the gaps."
> MEANING... WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING (GAP) YET, BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO FABRICATE A GOD AS THE CAUSE.*
> and for that you have NO Answer, and 'god' is not a valid one, Not in evidence, and who created 'him'?
> DUH!
> DUH!
> DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody FABRICATED God like atheist Darwin did with evolution.  We have been providing the answers and the evidence, but it just through that hole in your head.  Your comment just shows that you do not understand solid logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solid logic like talking snakes?
Click to expand...


You have to admit that Darwin made up evolution based on atheism.  Nobody believed the Earth was so old until Darwin.  “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25  We can see that as most scientists who believe evolution are atheists and agnostics.  

What's more important is Satan has become the god of the world and prince of the power of the air, so he doesn't have to resort to talking thru a snake.  He has the _power of death_ over humans now, as well as being able to tempt us with thoughts of doing bad.  Since he's more powerful, at times we give into those temptations.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> You have to admit that Darwin made up evolution based on atheism.  Nobody believed the Earth was so old until Darwin.  “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25  We can see that as most scientists who believe evolution are atheists and agnostics.
> 
> What's more important is Satan has become the god of the world and prince of the power of the air, so he doesn't have to resort to talking thru a snake.  He has the _power of death_ over humans now, as well as being able to tempt us with thoughts of doing bad.  Since he's more powerful, at times we give into those temptations.


*No, Darwin figured out Evolution through OBSERVATION, not 'atheism' you stupid ahole.

You, OTOH, are INDOCTRINATED with religion your brain is too small to change.
IF you were born into another religion you'd be just as DOGmatic and just as wrong.
Religion is a geocultural Accident of birth, not an observable fact.

`

`*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Nothing in science or history “backs up” supernaturalism.


Nor can it possibly. Why haven't these dimestore showmen figured this out? Once they introduce magic, the concept of evidence is forever rendered moot. Evidence relies on determinism and physical law. One cannot present evidence of magical horseshit, because magical horseshit defies and deletes the two principles on which the concept of evidence relies completely. Poor Bond. Decades of his second rate dog and pony show, and all a total waste of time and an obvious, dishonest con.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> No, Darwin figured out Evolution through OBSERVATION, not 'atheism' you stupid ahole.



Darwin was an atheist or became an atheist due to atheists James Hutton and Charles Lyell before evolution.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You ******* MORON
> This Thread IS "God of the gaps."
> MEANING... WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING (GAP) YET, BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO FABRICATE A GOD AS THE CAUSE.*
> and for that you have NO Answer, and 'god' is not a valid one, Not in evidence, and who created 'him'?
> DUH!
> DUH!
> DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody FABRICATED God like atheist Darwin did with evolution.  We have been providing the answers and the evidence, but it just through that hole in your head.  Your comment just shows that you do not understand solid logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solid logic like talking snakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to admit that Darwin made up evolution based on atheism.  Nobody believed the Earth was so old until Darwin.  “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25  We can see that as most scientists who believe evolution are atheists and agnostics.
> 
> What's more important is Satan has become the god of the world and prince of the power of the air, so he doesn't have to resort to talking thru a snake.  He has the _power of death_ over humans now, as well as being able to tempt us with thoughts of doing bad.  Since he's more powerful, at times we give into those temptations.
Click to expand...

You have to admit that your comment ''_Darwin made up evolution based on atheism_', is both ignorant and false. Darwin's theory was based upon the study of wildlife and their unique adaptations to their environments that he observed and recorded while in the Galapagos Islands. Most folks, even those with the most limited education are at least familiar with Darwin's works. 


You also have to admit that your comment ''_Nobody believed the Earth was so old until Darwin'', _is similarly ignorant and false.  Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth. You might want to learn the subject matter before making such nonsensical comments. It is simply dishonest to attribute such falsehoods to Charles Darwin but falsehoods seem to be a standard tactic for religious extremists. 

Long before Darwin, scientists saw indications of a very ancient planet.  In 1862 Lord Kelvin estimated the age of the Earth at 98 million years.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Darwin figured out Evolution through OBSERVATION, not 'atheism' you stupid ahole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was an atheist or became an atheist due to atheists James Hutton and Charles Lyell before evolution.
Click to expand...

Is this the kind of nonsense you're taught at the madrassah you attend?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Darwin figured out Evolution through OBSERVATION, not 'atheism' you stupid ahole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was an atheist or became an atheist due to atheists James Hutton and Charles Lyell before evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the kind of nonsense you're taught at the madrassah you attend?
Click to expand...

Bond is not qualified to give opinions on Darwin or on evolution. It always shocks me how little these cackling deniers know about evolution. I mean, if denying evolution were MY shameful fetish that consumed hours of each of my days, i would bother to learn, at the very least, what even middle schoolers know about it.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> No, Darwin figured out Evolution through OBSERVATION, not 'atheism' you stupid ahole.



Listen to me you stupidest and most colossal a-hole and POS on the planet.  All Darwin could observe was natural selection.  No one can OBSERVE evolution because it's a big lie.  All the atheists here believe in a lie or what we euphemize as a _fairy tale._



abu afak said:


> You, OTOH, are INDOCTRINATED with religion your brain is too small to change.
> IF you were born into another religion you'd be just as DOGmatic and just as wrong.
> Religion is a geocultural Accident of birth, not an observable fact.



Haha.  It's not religion, but creation science as the scientific method and real science backs it up.  Not a bunch of stupid and false theories.  What is fake is your stupidest atheism religion and evolution.

Christianity is an OBSERVABLE FACT because of the Bible and how science and history backs it up.  Why doesn't evolution have a history?  It's basically non-observation and all theory.  The only fact it has is natural selection because God created it before he created Adam.  It was the way he designed the animals.  

Not for humans as we are getting weaker not stronger.  How does evolution explain that?  IT DOESN'T as it's a fairy tale.  
People and human generations have been living shorter lives.  Tell me, what is going to stop covid-19?  Will the vaccine do it?  Or will the virus mutate into another form before we reach herd immunity?  It's still present around the world and still causing deaths.  Hopefully, we can reach the herd immunity and overcome the spread.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Once they introduce magic, the concept of evidence is forever rendered moot.



You still haven't explained what was there BEFORE the big bang?  Your infinite temperature and infinite density was disproved.  We cannot have an infinite past nor singularity.  How can evolution start if it doesn't have a cause?  You are too feeble minded to figure this out.  Thus, it is YOU who believe in magic and fairy tales.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Evidence relies on determinism and physical law.



Please explain this _determinism and physical law_?  Or is it just more babble?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bond is not qualified to give opinions on Darwin or on evolution



Well, how did Darwin observe what was there before the big bang?  How did he observe algae become asexual to sexual?  We can't observe any of it today.  All we see is natural selection in what God made for the animals.  That's more evidence for God.


----------



## james bond

Darwinism is based on atheism even though Darwin himself would not admit it.  He became agnostic because evolution teaches that there is no purpose to life.  It is only to perpetuate the survival of DNA.  Today Richard Dawkins has picked up Darwin's ball and ran with it.  He says, *"Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."* 

Evolution states living creatures (but not humans) differ from one another and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose.  Humans are not included because no one, even Darwin, has showed humans came from apes.  It doesn't happen today nor in the past.  There are no factual ape-human fossils nor transitional ones except for fake ones.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Darwinism is based on atheism even though Darwin himself would not admit it.  He became agnostic because evolution teaches that there is no purpose to life.  It is only to perpetuate the survival of DNA.  Today Richard Dawkins has picked up Darwin's ball and ran with it.  He says, *"Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."*
> 
> Evolution states living creatures (but not humans) differ from one another and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose.  Humans are not included because no one, even Darwin, has showed humans came from apes.  It doesn't happen today nor in the past.  There are no factual ape-human fossils nor transitional ones except for fake ones.


“Darwinism” is not based on atheism. I understand why you parrot that silly slogan but you present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by doing so.

Your comment about what evolution “states” is not true at all. You present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by doing so.

Humans did not evolve from apes.  You present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by claiming they did. There are a great many transitional fossils showing the progression of what was to become modern humans. You present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by denying that progression.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Darwinism is based on atheism even though Darwin himself would not admit it.  He became agnostic because evolution teaches that there is no purpose to life.  It is only to perpetuate the survival of DNA.  Today Richard Dawkins has picked up Darwin's ball and ran with it.  He says, *"Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."*
> 
> Evolution states living creatures (but not humans) differ from one another and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose.  Humans are not included because no one, even Darwin, has showed humans came from apes.  It doesn't happen today nor in the past.  There are no factual ape-human fossils nor transitional ones except for fake ones.



“*Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."*

I should point out that while you may view Dawkins’ comments as a description of your personal existence, his comments were not directed at you, personally.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “*Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."*
> 
> I should point out that while you may view Dawkins’ comments as a description of your personal existence, his comments were not directed at you, personally.



This is from Dawkins not Darwin even though both can be mixed up as stupid asf.  Atheists have no purpose in life.  I believe it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “*Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."*
> 
> I should point out that while you may view Dawkins’ comments as a description of your personal existence, his comments were not directed at you, personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from Dawkins not Darwin even though both can be mixed up as stupid asf.  Atheists have no purpose in life.  I believe it.
Click to expand...

You believe in many falsehoods.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “*Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."*
> 
> I should point out that while you may view Dawkins’ comments as a description of your personal existence, his comments were not directed at you, personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from Dawkins not Darwin even though both can be mixed up as stupid asf.  Atheists have no purpose in life.  I believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe in many falsehoods.
Click to expand...


Then, what is the purpose of life for atheists/ags?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Humans did not evolve from apes.


Hmmm... Pretty sure they did. "Apes" is defined as all extant apes, their common ancestor, and all species derived from that common ancestor. That being the case, humans evolved from apes. 

Not really crucial to any points here, but i think the above is correct.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “*Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."*
> 
> I should point out that while you may view Dawkins’ comments as a description of your personal existence, his comments were not directed at you, personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from Dawkins not Darwin even though both can be mixed up as stupid asf.  Atheists have no purpose in life.  I believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe in many falsehoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, what is the purpose of life for atheists/ags?
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of life for religious extremists? Are you hoping for virgins in heaven?


----------



## Hollie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans did not evolve from apes.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... Pretty sure they did. "Apes" is defined as all extant apes, their common ancestor, and all species derived from that common ancestor. That being the case, humans evolved from apes.
> 
> Not really crucial to any points here, but i think the above is correct.
Click to expand...

When dealing with folks like James Bond, context and his worldview is important to consider as he will waffle back and forth about humans evolving from chimps and / or apes. His notion of a chimp or ape is a modern configuration of what strolled off of Noah's Ark.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is based on atheism even though Darwin himself would not admit it.  He became agnostic because evolution teaches that there is no purpose to life.  It is only to perpetuate the survival of DNA.  Today Richard Dawkins has picked up Darwin's ball and ran with it.  He says, *"Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."*
> 
> Evolution states living creatures (but not humans) differ from one another and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose.  Humans are not included because no one, even Darwin, has showed humans came from apes.  It doesn't happen today nor in the past.  There are no factual ape-human fossils nor transitional ones except for fake ones.
> 
> 
> 
> “Darwinism” is not based on atheism. I understand why you parrot that silly slogan but you present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by doing so.
> 
> Your comment about what evolution “states” is not true at all. You present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by doing so.
> 
> Humans did not evolve from apes.  You present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by claiming they did. There are a great many transitional fossils showing the progression of what was to become modern humans. You present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by denying that progression.
Click to expand...

"Darwinism" is based entirely on the premise that natural selection and not GOD created diversity. There are fossils of various animals which have become extinct for one reason or another. There is no proof that various fossils are related to anything alive today unless they look the same as a living organism found today. And true. GOD created the human ADAM from the dust and Eve was created from Adam's bone by GOD. So, obviously man is in no way related to apes nor monkeys.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans did not evolve from apes.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... Pretty sure they did. "Apes" is defined as all extant apes, their common ancestor, and all species derived from that common ancestor. That being the case, humans evolved from apes.
> 
> Not really crucial to any points here, but i think the above is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When dealing with folks like James Bond, context and his worldview is important to consider as he will waffle back and forth about humans evolving from chimps and / or apes. His notion of a chimp or ape is a modern configuration of what strolled off of Noah's Ark.
Click to expand...

Speaking of NOAH's ARK, while scientists who once espoused that there was absolutely no proof whatsoever that the entire earth was once covered completely with water (not enough H2O, no evidence whatsoever of a would wide FLOOD, etc.), there is now suddenly a lot of proof that the entire earth was once underwater. YES, yes, these scientists are putting a few billion year spin on this event. They have to. They must. It would ruin their humanistic/naturalistic theories. HOWEVER, it does reveal that scientists can be wrong once again  ----- or at least not entirely truthful. And well, it is likely they are just as wrong with their eons of time, especially if one factors in an eternal being called GOD ---- who would have created a fully functioning universe and environment to both reveal some of HIS power and abilities to those HE created and loved. The fact is that GOD is so much more vast and eternal than ever the Universe could appear... independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-covered-water-billions-years-ago-waterworld-a9384526.html


----------



## LittleNipper

Speaking of NOAH's ARK, while scientists who once espoused that there was absolutely no proof whatsoever that the entire earth was once covered completely with water (not enough H2O, no evidence whatsoever of a would wide FLOOD, etc.), there is now suddenly a lot of proof that the entire earth was once underwater. YES, yes, these scientists are putting a few billion year spin on this event. They have to. They must. It would ruin their humanistic/naturalistic theories. HOWEVER, it does reveal that scientists can be wrong once again  ----- or at least not entirely truthful. And well, it is likely they are just as wrong with their eons of time, especially if one factors in an eternal being called GOD ---- who would have created a fully functioning universe and environment to both reveal some of HIS power and abilities to those HE created and loved. The fact is that GOD is so much more vast and eternal than ever the Universe could appear... 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/media/medialibrary/2013/10/Cooler-Early-Earth-Article.pdf


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Darwinism" is based entirely on the premise that natural selection and not GOD created diversity.


False. It doesn't gives two shits what god did or did not do. You can say natural selection was God's will, if you like. It will have no bearing whatsoever on Darwinism.

You are so far down the rabbit hole of your preferred iron age religion that you cannot view anything through any other lens. You think you and you preferred iron aged religion -- espoused by a only a small minority of people who have ever lived -- are somehow the center of the intellectual universe. All knowledge and belief, in the eyes of a brainwashed person like yourself, must, BY DESIGN, either confirm or deny your magical beliefs. This is absurd. Nobody is paying any attention or deference whatsoever to your iron aged fairy tales, when discovering new knowledge. Ever.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism" is based entirely on the premise that natural selection and not GOD created diversity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. It doesn't gives two shits what god did or did not do. You can say natural selection was God's will, if you like. It will have no bearing whatsoever on Darwinism.
> 
> You are so far down the rabbit hole of your preferred iron age religion that you cannot view anything through any other lens. You think you and you preferred iron aged religion -- espoused by a only a small minority of people who have ever lived -- are somehow the center of the intellectual universe. All knowledge and belief, in the eyes of a brainwashed person like yourself, must, BY DESIGN, either confirm or deny your magical beliefs. This is absurd. Nobody is paying any attention or deference whatsoever to your iron aged fairy tales, when discovering new knowledge. Ever.
Click to expand...

Darwin was a very confused man, who wrote a book and is now dead. According to you and Dawkins ---- DEAD, DEAD, DEAD! If there is no GOD, it really doesn't matter at all to him (Darwin), what you think or say because he is gone and so will you be soon enough. Then you can join him as dust. But I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a GOD, because people like yourself exist. And GOD in HIS Word explains exactly why you are the way you are. Things will become uncomfortable soon enough for you ---- so I will not belabor the point.  I'd much rather see you come to know CHRIST, but LOVE is a two way street, and you get only one chance at a joyous eternity. Time is growing short!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism" is based entirely on the premise that natural selection and not GOD created diversity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. It doesn't gives two shits what god did or did not do. You can say natural selection was God's will, if you like. It will have no bearing whatsoever on Darwinism.
> 
> You are so far down the rabbit hole of your preferred iron age religion that you cannot view anything through any other lens. You think you and you preferred iron aged religion -- espoused by a only a small minority of people who have ever lived -- are somehow the center of the intellectual universe. All knowledge and belief, in the eyes of a brainwashed person like yourself, must, BY DESIGN, either confirm or deny your magical beliefs. This is absurd. Nobody is paying any attention or deference whatsoever to your iron aged fairy tales, when discovering new knowledge. Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a very confused man, who wrote a book and is now dead. According to you and Dawkins ---- DEAD DEAD DEAD! If there is no GOD, it really doesn't matter much to him what you think or say because he is gone and so will you be soon enough.
Click to expand...

 You sound like the evil little kid next door in an 80s horror movie.

Maybe there is a god. You are the one who has the problem resolving evolution with the existence of god. Why cant you just look at it as "studying god's creation"? Is god not capable of thinking up and making evolution?


----------



## Anomalism

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You sound like the evil little kid next door in an 80s horror movie.
> 
> Maybe there is a god. You are the one who has the problem resolving evolution with the existence of god. Why cant you just look at it as "studying god's creation"? Is god not capable of thinking up and making evolution?



It's that fucking Bible...

Worst book ever.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is based on atheism even though Darwin himself would not admit it.  He became agnostic because evolution teaches that there is no purpose to life.  It is only to perpetuate the survival of DNA.  Today Richard Dawkins has picked up Darwin's ball and ran with it.  He says, *"Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."*
> 
> Evolution states living creatures (but not humans) differ from one another and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose.  Humans are not included because no one, even Darwin, has showed humans came from apes.  It doesn't happen today nor in the past.  There are no factual ape-human fossils nor transitional ones except for fake ones.
> 
> 
> 
> “Darwinism” is not based on atheism. I understand why you parrot that silly slogan but you present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by doing so.
> 
> Your comment about what evolution “states” is not true at all. You present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by doing so.
> 
> Humans did not evolve from apes.  You present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by claiming they did. There are a great many transitional fossils showing the progression of what was to become modern humans. You present yourself as ignorant and uninformed by denying that progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Darwinism" is based entirely on the premise that natural selection and not GOD created diversity. There are fossils of various animals which have become extinct for one reason or another. There is no proof that various fossils are related to anything alive today unless they look the same as a living organism found today. And true. GOD created the human ADAM from the dust and Eve was created from Adam's bone by GOD. So, obviously man is in no way related to apes nor monkeys.
Click to expand...

“Religionism” is based entirely in the premise that one or more gods, using magical / supernatural means, created all of existence. There is no evidence to suggest that your polytheistic gods created existence as opposed to the gods of other religioners. Everything about supernaturalism you attribute to your gods others attribute to their gods. Your claims to supernatural gods are best left to competitions vs. others and their claims to their gods.

“Religionism” has a difficult time with fossil evidence because that evidence points to change in species over massive timeframes. To suggest that there is no proof (science doesn’t deal in absolute proofs but evidence), that various fossils are not related to anything alive today is simply, literally, denial of the available evidence. I could go into thousands of examples of direct links from modern day biology to fossil remains of ancestral forms but that has been delineated before.

The science of biological evolution is not in question. The various claims of _religionism_ are in question. So, it thus falls to you to provide some evidence for your gods and we will hold your evidence to the same standard that we hold science to. That seems fair.

What’s odd is that we have fossil evidence showing clear, intermediate progressions of humans evolving from a primitive ape-like ancestor. Could the various gods have been experimenting with forms of humans? I have to note that the gods of other religions provide entirely different tales and fables of how humans were “created”. If we assume those tales and fables are true, it means that you have inherited the wrong gods.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Speaking of NOAH's ARK, while scientists who once espoused that there was absolutely no proof whatsoever that the entire earth was once covered completely with water (not enough H2O, no evidence whatsoever of a would wide FLOOD, etc.), there is now suddenly a lot of proof that the entire earth was once underwater. YES, yes, these scientists are putting a few billion year spin on this event. They have to. They must. It would ruin their humanistic/naturalistic theories. HOWEVER, it does reveal that scientists can be wrong once again  ----- or at least not entirely truthful. And well, it is likely they are just as wrong with their eons of time, especially if one factors in an eternal being called GOD ---- who would have created a fully functioning universe and environment to both reveal some of HIS power and abilities to those HE created and loved. The fact is that GOD is so much more vast and eternal than ever the Universe could appear... 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/media/medialibrary/2013/10/Cooler-Early-Earth-Article.pdf


You realize of course that a 1.5 billion year old earth is in direct contradiction to the Noah fable and a godly flood just a few thousand years ago.

It’s really stinging irony that those promoting science hating religionism will cherry pick science articles in attempts to prove their religion, while at the same time reviling science as contradicting their religionism.

You do realize that NASA was a co-conspirator in the moon landing fraud, right? Why would anyone cite a NASA article when those evilutionist, atheist scientists are such fakes?


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism" is based entirely on the premise that natural selection and not GOD created diversity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. It doesn't gives two shits what god did or did not do. You can say natural selection was God's will, if you like. It will have no bearing whatsoever on Darwinism.
> 
> You are so far down the rabbit hole of your preferred iron age religion that you cannot view anything through any other lens. You think you and you preferred iron aged religion -- espoused by a only a small minority of people who have ever lived -- are somehow the center of the intellectual universe. All knowledge and belief, in the eyes of a brainwashed person like yourself, must, BY DESIGN, either confirm or deny your magical beliefs. This is absurd. Nobody is paying any attention or deference whatsoever to your iron aged fairy tales, when discovering new knowledge. Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a very confused man, who wrote a book and is now dead. According to you and Dawkins ---- DEAD DEAD DEAD! If there is no GOD, it really doesn't matter much to him what you think or say because he is gone and so will you be soon enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like the evil little kid next door in an 80s horror movie.
> 
> Maybe there is a god. You are the one who has the problem resolving evolution with the existence of god. Why cant you just look at it as "studying god's creation"? Is god not capable of thinking up and making evolution?
Click to expand...

God is not capable of lying. JESUS said, "GOD made one man and one woman." And that is that. The Bible clearly shows 6 days of creation and on the 7th day GOD rested. I don't need to resolve evolution. You need to prove that evolution is the way all the various kinds came to be. And so far, you have never been able to do that. Every animal is different in some way from all the rest within its category.  No two humans are exactly alike ----- even if twins, etc... However humans remain human, Dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, sheep remain sheep, bees remain bees, flies remain flies, bats remain bats, bacteria remains bacteria, fungus remains fungi, plants remain plants --------- etc., etc., etc....


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of NOAH's ARK, while scientists who once espoused that there was absolutely no proof whatsoever that the entire earth was once covered completely with water (not enough H2O, no evidence whatsoever of a would wide FLOOD, etc.), there is now suddenly a lot of proof that the entire earth was once underwater. YES, yes, these scientists are putting a few billion year spin on this event. They have to. They must. It would ruin their humanistic/naturalistic theories. HOWEVER, it does reveal that scientists can be wrong once again  ----- or at least not entirely truthful. And well, it is likely they are just as wrong with their eons of time, especially if one factors in an eternal being called GOD ---- who would have created a fully functioning universe and environment to both reveal some of HIS power and abilities to those HE created and loved. The fact is that GOD is so much more vast and eternal than ever the Universe could appear... 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/media/medialibrary/2013/10/Cooler-Early-Earth-Article.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> You realize of course that a 1.5 billion year old earth is in direct contradiction to the Noah fable and a godly flood just a few thousand years ago.
> 
> It’s really stinging irony that those promoting science hating religionism will cherry pick science articles in attempts to prove their religion, while at the same time reviling science as contradicting their religionism.
> 
> You do realize that NASA was a co-conspirator in the moon landing fraud, right? Why would anyone cite a NASA article when those evilutionist, atheist scientists are such fakes?
Click to expand...

And I'm telling you what may be perceived by some as billions of years old, does not factor in GOD! And yes man went to the moon. I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. Did they come back and say they found life there? No, they didn't. In fact NASA proved that many theories concerning the age of the moon were false. They were concerned that the moon was deeply covered in lunar dust for one.  Scientists, are only as correct as they are HONEST with their findings. Speculation isn't fact until proven.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of NOAH's ARK, while scientists who once espoused that there was absolutely no proof whatsoever that the entire earth was once covered completely with water (not enough H2O, no evidence whatsoever of a would wide FLOOD, etc.), there is now suddenly a lot of proof that the entire earth was once underwater. YES, yes, these scientists are putting a few billion year spin on this event. They have to. They must. It would ruin their humanistic/naturalistic theories. HOWEVER, it does reveal that scientists can be wrong once again  ----- or at least not entirely truthful. And well, it is likely they are just as wrong with their eons of time, especially if one factors in an eternal being called GOD ---- who would have created a fully functioning universe and environment to both reveal some of HIS power and abilities to those HE created and loved. The fact is that GOD is so much more vast and eternal than ever the Universe could appear... 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/media/medialibrary/2013/10/Cooler-Early-Earth-Article.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> You realize of course that a 1.5 billion year old earth is in direct contradiction to the Noah fable and a godly flood just a few thousand years ago.
> 
> It’s really stinging irony that those promoting science hating religionism will cherry pick science articles in attempts to prove their religion, while at the same time reviling science as contradicting their religionism.
> 
> You do realize that NASA was a co-conspirator in the moon landing fraud, right? Why would anyone cite a NASA article when those evilutionist, atheist scientists are such fakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm telling you what may be perceived by some as billions of years old, does not factor in GOD! And yes man went to the moon. I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. Did they come back and say they found life there? No, they didn't. In fact NASA proved that many theories concerning the age of the moon were false. They were concerned that the moon was deeply covered in lunar dust for one.  Scientists, are only as correct as they are HONEST with their findings. Speculation isn't fact until proven.
Click to expand...

You telling me “perceptions” about time are not factors that concern your gods is not a convincing argument. You may feel you know for certain that the gods are perhaps manipulating time but there are good reasons to accept that the speed of light is calculable and that indicates a view back in time of billions of years.

Why would use a link to NASA in your earlier post to “prove” your gods but dismiss NASA and the Hubble telescope, for example, as “seeing” back billions of years in time?

There is something about pick and choose religionism that is really arbitrary and capricious.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> JESUS said, "GOD made one man and one woman."


So? I made one cake once. That doesn't mean i never made others. And maybe he was referring to the human race in general? Use your imagination. You have no problem dismissing other parts of the bible, being the cafeteria christian you are. You need to adjust your views on this topic to align with the facts. Because the facts arent going to adjust.

For example:

This...






...is more closely related to this....






...than it is to this:


----------



## abu afak

`




`


----------



## abu afak

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of NOAH's ARK, while scientists who once espoused that there was absolutely no proof whatsoever that the entire earth was once covered completely with water (not enough H2O, no evidence whatsoever of a would wide FLOOD, etc.), there is now suddenly a lot of proof that the entire earth was once underwater. YES, yes, these scientists are putting a few billion year spin on this event. They have to. They must. It would ruin their humanistic/naturalistic theories. HOWEVER, it does reveal that scientists can be wrong once again  ----- or at least not entirely truthful. And well, it is likely they are just as wrong with their eons of time, especially if one factors in an eternal being called GOD ---- who would have created a fully functioning universe and environment to both reveal some of HIS power and abilities to those HE created and loved. The fact is that GOD is so much more vast and eternal than ever the Universe could appear... 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/media/medialibrary/2013/10/Cooler-Early-Earth-Article.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> You realize of course that a 1.5 billion year old earth is in direct contradiction to the Noah fable and a godly flood just a few thousand years ago.
> 
> It’s really stinging irony that those promoting science hating religionism will cherry pick science articles in attempts to prove their religion, while at the same time reviling science as contradicting their religionism.
> 
> You do realize that NASA was a co-conspirator in the moon landing fraud, right? Why would anyone cite a NASA article when those evilutionist, atheist scientists are such fakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm telling you what may be perceived by some as billions of years old, does not factor in GOD! And yes man went to the moon. I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. Did they come back and say they found life there? No, they didn't. In fact NASA proved that many theories concerning the age of the moon were false. They were concerned that the moon was deeply covered in lunar dust for one.  Scientists, are only as correct as they are HONEST with their findings. Speculation isn't fact until proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You telling me “perceptions” about time are not factors that concern your gods is not a convincing argument. You may feel you know for certain that the gods are perhaps manipulating time but there are good reasons to accept that the speed of light is calculable and that indicates a view back in time of billions of years.
> 
> Why would use a link to NASA in your earlier post to “prove” your gods but dismiss NASA and the Hubble telescope, for example, as “seeing” back billions of years in time?
> 
> There is something about pick and choose religionism that is really arbitrary and capricious.
Click to expand...

So Ringtone is doing a pretty routine God of the Gaps.
That's it.
A weak Philosophical, NOT evidentiary case for this deity.
(he's too embarrassed to name, lest he be outed as just another James Bond)

`


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:


> Who has no logic you Always Wrong NUMB NUTS?
> *There is NO god in evidence and certainly not yours.
> This is the SCIENCE section where EVIDENCE is required.*





james bond said:


> *Yet, your side has Not Explanation for start of space and time, *how the cell developed, how anything infinite can exist in the natural world when it would violate the laws of physics, how the energy needed for the universe came to be, how humans (intelligent beings who can make choices) came into existence, why there are mountains coming up from the depths of our oceans around the world, and more.  Stop lying and using the lies of evolution to explain what is NOT science and technology.  You are a colossal boob.


God of the Gaps classic.
YOUR side used to have no explanation for fire or fertility or rain.
so they made up a god.
'My side' looks for and finds explanations (eventually gets rid of gods), your side discourages that in favor of old myths.

another piece of Bond's logic/IQ deficiency.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has no logic you Always Wrong NUMB NUTS?
> *There is NO god in evidence and certainly not yours.
> This is the SCIENCE section where EVIDENCE is required.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet, your side has Not Explanation for start of space and time, *how the cell developed, how anything infinite can exist in the natural world when it would violate the laws of physics, how the energy needed for the universe came to be, how humans (intelligent beings who can make choices) came into existence, why there are mountains coming up from the depths of our oceans around the world, and more.  Stop lying and using the lies of evolution to explain what is NOT science and technology.  You are a colossal boob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God of the Gaps classic.
> YOUR side used to have no explanation for fire or fertility or rain.
> so they made up a god.
> 'My side' looks for and finds explanations (eventually gets rid of gods), your side discourages that in favor of old myths.
> 
> another piece of Bond's logic/IQ deficiency.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


How can it be God of the Gaps when the evidence backs up what God stated?  To the contrary, evolution is more evolutionary lies of the gaps.  It is built like a tower of cards waiting to fall at any moment.

>>YOUR side used to have no explanation for fire or fertility or rain.
so they made up a god.<<

You'll have to explain this atheistic claim.

Nobody had to make up the Christian God.  It was explained in the Bible.  How else can it be the best selling book year-after-year?

If it wasn't true, then there would have been contradictions found early on.  Instead, we find ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS are on the atheists and evolution side.  You have absolutely no evidence for anything Darwin ever said (except for natural selection which God created).

It's the atheists who made up evolution, abiogenesis, singularity, and the rest of their lies.  There is absolutely no evidence for any of it.  Physics and the scientific method shows that singularity and abiogenesis are not possible.  Thus, it is not possible to have a common ancestor or evolution.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *
> Nobody had to make up the Christian God.  It was explained in the Bible.  *How else can it be the best selling book year-after-year?


There is NO evidence for god.
Zero.
So you resort to another of your 12 IQ Fallacies....

Circular Reasoning

*CIRCULAR REASONING*
_circulus in demonstrando_
......
Description: A type of reasoning in which *the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition*, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.​This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​*This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune* -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” *Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail*.​

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody had to make up the Christian God.  It was explained in the Bible.  *How else can it be the best selling book year-after-year?
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO evidence for god.
> Zero.
> So you resort to another of your 12 IQ Fallacies....
> 
> Circular Reasoning
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> _circulus in demonstrando_
> ......
> Description: A type of reasoning in which *the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition*, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.​This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​*This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune* -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” *Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail*.​
> 
> `
Click to expand...


I was about to take the dogs for a walk, but how can _circular reasoning_ be the best selling book year-after-year?  What's the last evolution book that sold well in the general public?

The Bible is a beautiful and complex book which one needs to read often to keep up.  It explains everything including why the Perseverance rover can't find squat of life on Mars.  Instead, it ends up naming rocks that people will forget in short order.  It means atheism is wrong, wrong, wrong and so are you.  It is truly amazing that educated people believe in the lies of evolution (I'm not referring to you as educated  ).

To the contrary, Darwinism and atheism do not have a valid explanation for most things and is the science based on circular reasoning.  You have been going in circles for most of your life as an atheist that you cannot see what is true anymore.  Science should not be based on consensus, but the scientific method.  It goes against what Sir Francis Bacon stated.

Anyway, I wouldn't brag about the things you and your family fell for like an e-mail from a Nigerian prince.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> I was about to take the dogs for a walk, *but How can circular reasoning be the Best Selling Book year-after-year?  What's the last evolution book that sold well in the general public?*


LACKING any EVIDENCE we get ANOTHER Classic FALLACY!
You are a Walking and even encyclopedia IDIOT!

*Argumentum ad populum*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​In argumentation theory, an _*argumentum ad populum*_ (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) *is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, *often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".​​Other names for the fallacy include *common belief fallacy* or *appeal to (common) belief*,[2][3] *appeal to the majority*,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] *appeal to popularity*,[6][7] *argument from consensus*,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] *bandwagon fallacy*,[7][10] _*consensus gentium*_ (Latin for "agreement of the people"),[10] democratic fallacy,[11], *mob appeal..*​​​*`*​


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody had to make up the Christian God.  It was explained in the Bible.  *How else can it be the best selling book year-after-year?
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO evidence for god.
> Zero.
> So you resort to another of your 12 IQ Fallacies....
> 
> Circular Reasoning
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> _circulus in demonstrando_
> ......
> Description: A type of reasoning in which *the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition*, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.​This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​*This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune* -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” *Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail*.​
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You mean other than the universe popping into existence being hardwired for intelligence and Jesus Christ, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You mean other than the universe popping into existence being hardwired for intelligence and Jesus Christ, right?


So what if it did? I fail to see the need for magical sky daddies to explain that.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was about to take the dogs for a walk, *but How can circular reasoning be the Best Selling Book year-after-year?  What's the last evolution book that sold well in the general public?*
> 
> 
> 
> LACKING any EVIDENCE we get ANOTHER Classic FALLACY!
> You are a Walking and even encyclopedia IDIOT!
> 
> *Argumentum ad populum*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ​In argumentation theory, an _*argumentum ad populum*_ (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) *is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, *often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".​​Other names for the fallacy include *common belief fallacy* or *appeal to (common) belief*,[2][3] *appeal to the majority*,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] *appeal to popularity*,[6][7] *argument from consensus*,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] *bandwagon fallacy*,[7][10] _*consensus gentium*_ (Latin for "agreement of the people"),[10] democratic fallacy,[11], *mob appeal..*​​​*`*​
Click to expand...


Haha.  Let's admit that a book based on circular reasoning will be exposed for what it is and eventually not sell.  This has happened with Darwin's book and we found that his second book was racist.  I pointed out it led to eugenics (by his cousin) and the Holocaust.  You cannot figure these things out, so I have to explicitly tell you.

Second, that wasn't my main argument.

If the Bible was just a popular book, then it would fade in sales as its popularity waned.  Instead, I pointed out that, " The Bible is a beautiful and complex book which one needs to read often to keep up. It explains everything including why the Perseverance rover can't find squat of life on Mars."  There has been no life found on Mars and our solar system, so it proves Earth, the universe, and everything in it was created by God.  Just the seven days of creation explain beautifully how everything happened and science backs it up.  If there is no abiogenesis (which the swan neck flask experiment disproves), then there can be no evolution and evolutionary origins.  See how the Bible uncovers what is true and science backs it up.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean other than the universe popping into existence being hardwired for intelligence and Jesus Christ, right?
> 
> 
> 
> So what if it did? I fail to see the need for magical sky daddies to explain that.
Click to expand...

Me either.  I don't believe in magical sky daddies.  I believe in God.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> .....Second, that wasn't my main argument.
> *If the Bible was just a POPULAR book, then it would fade in sales as its Popularity waned. * Instead, I pointed out that,* " The Bible is a beautiful and complex book which one needs to read often to keep up.
> It explains everything including why the Perseverance rover can't find squat of life on Mars." * There has been no life found on Mars and our solar system, so it proves Earth, the universe, and everything in it was created by God.  Just the seven days of creation explain beautifully how everything happened and science backs it up.  If there is no abiogenesis (which the swan neck flask experiment disproves), then there can be no evolution and evolutionary origins.  See how the Bible uncovers what is true and science backs it up.


*More Argumentum ad Populum!!!!!
WTF!

You are mentally ill.
Illogical and completely brainwashed.*


`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Second, that wasn't my main argument.
> *If the Bible was just a POPULAR book, then it would fade in sales as its Popularity waned. * Instead, I pointed out that,* " The Bible is a beautiful and complex book which one needs to read often to keep up.
> It explains everything including why the Perseverance rover can't find squat of life on Mars." * There has been no life found on Mars and our solar system, so it proves Earth, the universe, and everything in it was created by God.  Just the seven days of creation explain beautifully how everything happened and science backs it up.  If there is no abiogenesis (which the swan neck flask experiment disproves), then there can be no evolution and evolutionary origins.  See how the Bible uncovers what is true and science backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> *More Argumentum ad Populum!!!!!
> WTF!
> 
> You are mentally ill.
> Illogical and completely brainwashed.*
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


No, I showed that abiongenesis doesn't happen because of the swan neck experiment and it means no extraterrestrial life in our solar system and Mars (latest search).

You are in denial because of your atheist religion and would make up anything, i.e. any reason or excuse, to not admit failure of your weird but precious (to you) atheistic abiogenesis beliefs.

It really is pathetic and funny beyond  belief .


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Second, that wasn't my main argument.
> *If the Bible was just a POPULAR book, then it would fade in sales as its Popularity waned. * Instead, I pointed out that,* " The Bible is a beautiful and complex book which one needs to read often to keep up.
> It explains everything including why the Perseverance rover can't find squat of life on Mars." * There has been no life found on Mars and our solar system, so it proves Earth, the universe, and everything in it was created by God.  Just the seven days of creation explain beautifully how everything happened and science backs it up.  If there is no abiogenesis (which the swan neck flask experiment disproves), then there can be no evolution and evolutionary origins.  See how the Bible uncovers what is true and science backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> *More Argumentum ad Populum!!!!!
> WTF!
> 
> You are mentally ill.
> Illogical and completely brainwashed.*
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I showed that abiongenesis doesn't happen because of the swan neck experiment and it means no extraterrestrial life in our solar system and Mars (latest search).
> 
> You are in denial because of your atheist religion and would make up anything, i.e. any reason or excuse, to not admit failure of your weird but precious (to you) atheistic abiogenesis beliefs.
> 
> It really is pathetic and funny beyond  belief .
Click to expand...

Atheism isn't a religion. (Neither is not believing in astrology!)
It's a logical position after NO evidence for any god in 10,000 years, and the Bible-god-bible-god-bible Circle Jerk is not evidence you mentally ill freak.
Abiogenesis is a yet not known but evidence of self-replicating non-living molecules is a good hint and at least points in one direction.
10,000 gods have no direction, just mayhem.

Now give the other patients a chance at the machine you 101% SICK mutha*****.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Second, that wasn't my main argument.
> *If the Bible was just a POPULAR book, then it would fade in sales as its Popularity waned. * Instead, I pointed out that,* " The Bible is a beautiful and complex book which one needs to read often to keep up.
> It explains everything including why the Perseverance rover can't find squat of life on Mars." * There has been no life found on Mars and our solar system, so it proves Earth, the universe, and everything in it was created by God.  Just the seven days of creation explain beautifully how everything happened and science backs it up.  If there is no abiogenesis (which the swan neck flask experiment disproves), then there can be no evolution and evolutionary origins.  See how the Bible uncovers what is true and science backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> *More Argumentum ad Populum!!!!!
> WTF!
> 
> You are mentally ill.
> Illogical and completely brainwashed.*
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I showed that abiongenesis doesn't happen because of the swan neck experiment and it means no extraterrestrial life in our solar system and Mars (latest search).
> 
> You are in denial because of your atheist religion and would make up anything, i.e. any reason or excuse, to not admit failure of your weird but precious (to you) atheistic abiogenesis beliefs.
> 
> It really is pathetic and funny beyond  belief .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism isn't a religion. (Neither is not believing in astrology!)
> It's a logical position after NO evidence for any god in 10,000 years, and the Bible-god-bible-god-bible Circle Jerk is not evidence you mentally ill freak.
> Abiogenesis is a yet not known but evidence of self-replicating non-living molecules is a good hint and at least points in one direction.
> 10,000 gods have no direction, just mayhem.
> 
> Now give the other patients a chance at the machine you 101% SICK mutha*****.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Sure atheism is a religion.  It just goes to show you that atheists and YOU can't even get that right because they're SO FARKING STUPID.  No wonder the Bible God created hell.

Anyway, it's a fitting punishment for those who can't figure out creation science, i.e. real science, things out and end up believing in LIES.  If you had one single evidence for how we got here, then it would be a miracle.  Instead, it's a house of cards ready to topple over when Jesus returns to get his revenge.

This is YOU as the reporter abu afak...


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Second, that wasn't my main argument.
> *If the Bible was just a POPULAR book, then it would fade in sales as its Popularity waned. * Instead, I pointed out that,* " The Bible is a beautiful and complex book which one needs to read often to keep up.
> It explains everything including why the Perseverance rover can't find squat of life on Mars." * There has been no life found on Mars and our solar system, so it proves Earth, the universe, and everything in it was created by God.  Just the seven days of creation explain beautifully how everything happened and science backs it up.  If there is no abiogenesis (which the swan neck flask experiment disproves), then there can be no evolution and evolutionary origins.  See how the Bible uncovers what is true and science backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> *More Argumentum ad Populum!!!!!
> WTF!
> 
> You are mentally ill.
> Illogical and completely brainwashed.*
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I showed that abiongenesis doesn't happen because of the swan neck experiment and it means no extraterrestrial life in our solar system and Mars (latest search).
> 
> You are in denial because of your atheist religion and would make up anything, i.e. any reason or excuse, to not admit failure of your weird but precious (to you) atheistic abiogenesis beliefs.
> 
> It really is pathetic and funny beyond  belief .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism isn't a religion. (Neither is not believing in astrology!)
> It's a logical position after NO evidence for any god in 10,000 years, and the Bible-god-bible-god-bible Circle Jerk is not evidence you mentally ill freak.
> Abiogenesis is a yet not known but evidence of self-replicating non-living molecules is a good hint and at least points in one direction.
> 10,000 gods have no direction, just mayhem.
> 
> Now give the other patients a chance at the machine you 101% SICK mutha*****.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Atheism is a position, but it is hardly logical. JESUS certainly implied that HE was/is God, the I AM. And HE didn't deny it when HE was called the MESSIAH, the SON of the living GOD.  And there is certainly a lot of evidence that JESUS existed. There is also evidence that HIS followers were willing to suffer torture and death rather than deny that JESUS was the MESSIAH, and still do to this day. People generally cannot change their spots, and yet there exists plenty of evidence that people who have become Christian do in fact seem to have a very high success rate in ending old nasty habits that most others find impossible to reform. The continuing story of the coming MESSIAH and HIS arrival spans millennia ----- from prophetic revelations of HIS coming, to HIS arrival, and now HIS emanate future return. And calling someone a freak or mentally ill because they are trying to demonstrate their passion of GOD, doesn't really give credence that you are superior ------- but it does illustrate that there are definite differences between one who possesses GOD and one who ultimately shuns HIM by ridiculing HIS followers...  The stories of pagan gods do not possess any of this. Often such tales can be attributed to one individual, and because of this, documented pagan orgies, and cruel/violent rituals, the pagan god's fell out of favor as Christian logic prevailed.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Sure atheism is a religion.  It just goes to show you that atheists and YOU can't even get that right because they're SO FARKING STUPID.  No wonder the Bible God created hell.
> 
> Anyway, it's a fitting punishment for those who can't figure out creation science, i.e. real science, things out and end up believing in LIES.  If you had one single evidence for how we got here, then it would be a miracle.  Instead, it's a house of cards ready to topple over when Jesus returns to get his revenge.
> 
> This is YOU as the reporter abu afak...


1. You're mentally ill, totally brainwashed, and it's a good thing you are in an institution
You do NOT make science posts (or refutation of them).
You are Stupid Bible Spouting jerk.

2.. Again: Atheists are no more a religion than those who don't believe in Astrology are.
UNREFUTED.
UNTOUCHED

3. "Bible god created hell", and "Jesus returns" and NO PLACE IN A SCIENCE SECTION.
YOU ARE SICK
SICK
SICK


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> Atheism is a position, but it is hardly logical. JESUS certainly implied that HE was/is God, the I AM. And HE didn't deny it when HE was called the MESSIAH, the SON of the living GOD.  And there is certainly a lot of evidence that JESUS existed. There is also evidence that HIS followers were willing to suffer torture and death rather than deny that JESUS was the MESSIAH, and still do to this day. People generally cannot change their spots, and yet there exists plenty of evidence that people who have become Christian do in fact seem to have a very high success rate in ending old nasty habits that most others find impossible to reform. The continuing story of the coming MESSIAH and HIS arrival spans millennia ----- from prophetic revelations of HIS coming, to HIS arrival, and now HIS emanate future return. And calling someone a freak or mentally ill because they are trying to demonstrate their passion of GOD, doesn't really give credence that you are superior ------- but it does illustrate that there are definite differences between one who possesses GOD and one who ultimately shuns HIM by ridiculing HIS followers...  The stories of pagan gods do not possess any of this. Often such tales can be attributed to one individual, and because of this, documented pagan orgies, and cruel/violent rituals, the pagan god's fell out of favor as Christian logic prevailed.


Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.
NOT believing in Astrology or Alchemy is also a position, NOT a religion.

*UNLIKE YOU, I would be delighted to change my position if ANY Hard Evidence of god/s surface.
YOU, OTOH, have NOT changed your position despite tons/Overwhelming EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.*

"Jesus", "Messiah" "son" "God" are NOT SCIENCE nor refutation of it.
They are your FAITH: belief withOUT evidence.

Your post is pure religion and does not show any objective evidence.
You, like James Bond, are Stupid, and in a CULT of the the totally brainwashed.
*Neither of you posts any science, just your personal Testimony/FAITH.
So GET THE **** OUT of the Science section.*


`

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.


Your dogmatic beliefs, attacks against rival religions and your desire for government to implement your morally relativistic desires says otherwise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Your dogmatic beliefs, attacks against rival religions and your desire for government to implement your morally relativistic desires says otherwise.
Click to expand...

No they don't. You guys just have no way to intellectually elevate your magical hooha, so your only option left is to try to drag opposing positions into the magical, shitty murk where your beliefs reside. It's like vandalizing your neighbor's house to make your own house look better.


----------



## abu afak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Your dogmatic beliefs, attacks against rival religions and your desire for government to implement your morally relativistic desires says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No don't. You guys just have no way to intellectually elevate your magical hooha, so your only option left is to try to drag opposing positions into the magical, shitty murk where your beliefs reside. It's like vandalizing your neighbor's house to make your own house look better.
Click to expand...

You have to understand Ding-bat (on IGNORE) thinks/has always idiotically thought I was an Arab and a Muslim because he is stupid and never othered to ie, google my handle.

abu afak was a Jewish poet who Mohammed had killed for speaking against him.
The handle is a criticism/bait of Islam.
Has driven many bonkers over the 15+ years I've used it including on Arab/Muslim mbs.

I personally am an atheist but would be glad/Thrilled to change positions should ANY EVIDENCE of a god ever get shown.
ie, Should the stars line up overhead one night and spell "SHIVA" in Hindi I would become a believer.
The other people here who say they believe in god (but only ie, Haysoos), would have their lives fall apart.
Many would commit suicide.
Their friends families, social networks, and churches empty.
Their lives over.
While I would say, how cool it was after all these years for the big guy to show himself.
Who's dogmatic?


`


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Your dogmatic beliefs, attacks against rival religions and your desire for government to implement your morally relativistic desires says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they don't. You guys just have no way to intellectually elevate your magical hooha, so your only option left is to try to drag opposing positions into the magical, shitty murk where your beliefs reside. It's like vandalizing your neighbor's house to make your own house look better.
Click to expand...

This is you defending your religion against an attack from a rival religion.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Your dogmatic beliefs, attacks against rival religions and your desire for government to implement your morally relativistic desires says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No don't. You guys just have no way to intellectually elevate your magical hooha, so your only option left is to try to drag opposing positions into the magical, shitty murk where your beliefs reside. It's like vandalizing your neighbor's house to make your own house look better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to understand Ding-bat (on IGNORE) thinks/has always idiotically thought I was an Arab and a Muslim because he is stupid and never othered to ie, google my handle.
> 
> abu afak was a Jewish poet who Mohammed had killed for speaking against him.
> The handle is a criticism/bait of Islam.
> Has driven many bonkers over the 15+ years I've used it including on Arab/Muslim mbs.
> 
> I personally am an atheist but would be glad/Thrilled to change positions should ANY EVIDENCE of a god ever get shown.
> ie, Should the stars line up overhead one night and spell "SHIVA" in Hindi I would become a believer.
> The other people here who say they believe in god (but only ie, Haysoos), would have their lives fall apart.
> Many would commit suicide.
> Their friends families, social networks, and churches empty.
> Their lives over.
> While I would say, how cool it was after all these years for the big guy to show himself.
> Who's dogmatic?
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Says the guy who claims to be in Mensa and can't figure out what evidence actually is.  It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Your dogmatic beliefs, attacks against rival religions and your desire for government to implement your morally relativistic desires says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they don't. You guys just have no way to intellectually elevate your magical hooha, so your only option left is to try to drag opposing positions into the magical, shitty murk where your beliefs reside. It's like vandalizing your neighbor's house to make your own house look better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is you defending your religion against an attack from a rival religion.
Click to expand...

Haha, sure ding. Soothe yourself. Be my guest.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Says the guy who claims to be in Mensa and can't figure out what evidence actually is.


A perfect illustration of why you need a bull ring rhetorical exchange.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Second, that wasn't my main argument.
> *If the Bible was just a POPULAR book, then it would fade in sales as its Popularity waned. * Instead, I pointed out that,* " The Bible is a beautiful and complex book which one needs to read often to keep up.
> It explains everything including why the Perseverance rover can't find squat of life on Mars." * There has been no life found on Mars and our solar system, so it proves Earth, the universe, and everything in it was created by God.  Just the seven days of creation explain beautifully how everything happened and science backs it up.  If there is no abiogenesis (which the swan neck flask experiment disproves), then there can be no evolution and evolutionary origins.  See how the Bible uncovers what is true and science backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> *More Argumentum ad Populum!!!!!
> WTF!
> 
> You are mentally ill.
> Illogical and completely brainwashed.*
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I showed that abiongenesis doesn't happen because of the swan neck experiment and it means no extraterrestrial life in our solar system and Mars (latest search).
> 
> You are in denial because of your atheist religion and would make up anything, i.e. any reason or excuse, to not admit failure of your weird but precious (to you) atheistic abiogenesis beliefs.
> 
> It really is pathetic and funny beyond  belief .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism isn't a religion. (Neither is not believing in astrology!)
> It's a logical position after NO evidence for any god in 10,000 years, and the Bible-god-bible-god-bible Circle Jerk is not evidence you mentally ill freak.
> Abiogenesis is a yet not known but evidence of self-replicating non-living molecules is a good hint and at least points in one direction.
> 10,000 gods have no direction, just mayhem.
> 
> Now give the other patients a chance at the machine you 101% SICK mutha*****.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism is a position, but it is hardly logical. JESUS certainly implied that HE was/is God, the I AM. And HE didn't deny it when HE was called the MESSIAH, the SON of the living GOD.  And there is certainly a lot of evidence that JESUS existed. There is also evidence that HIS followers were willing to suffer torture and death rather than deny that JESUS was the MESSIAH, and still do to this day. People generally cannot change their spots, and yet there exists plenty of evidence that people who have become Christian do in fact seem to have a very high success rate in ending old nasty habits that most others find impossible to reform. The continuing story of the coming MESSIAH and HIS arrival spans millennia ----- from prophetic revelations of HIS coming, to HIS arrival, and now HIS emanate future return. And calling someone a freak or mentally ill because they are trying to demonstrate their passion of GOD, doesn't really give credence that you are superior ------- but it does illustrate that there are definite differences between one who possesses GOD and one who ultimately shuns HIM by ridiculing HIS followers...  The stories of pagan gods do not possess any of this. Often such tales can be attributed to one individual, and because of this, documented pagan orgies, and cruel/violent rituals, the pagan god's fell out of favor as Christian logic prevailed.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that atheism is a valid conclusion and entirely logical. Let’s understand that religious belief for the overwhelming majority of people is simply the inheritance of belief in the social, cultural, familial setting. Most people simply inherit the gods they’re given. That’s not at all logical. It’s conformance. Logic would suggest questioning the notion of supernatural events, incorporeal entities and such things as claims to “miracles”.

Have you noticed that as mankind grew in knowledge, as he learned more of the workings of nature, claims to “miracles” have vanished at an inversely proportional rate?


----------



## frigidweirdo

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Second, that wasn't my main argument.
> *If the Bible was just a POPULAR book, then it would fade in sales as its Popularity waned. * Instead, I pointed out that,* " The Bible is a beautiful and complex book which one needs to read often to keep up.
> It explains everything including why the Perseverance rover can't find squat of life on Mars." * There has been no life found on Mars and our solar system, so it proves Earth, the universe, and everything in it was created by God.  Just the seven days of creation explain beautifully how everything happened and science backs it up.  If there is no abiogenesis (which the swan neck flask experiment disproves), then there can be no evolution and evolutionary origins.  See how the Bible uncovers what is true and science backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> *More Argumentum ad Populum!!!!!
> WTF!
> 
> You are mentally ill.
> Illogical and completely brainwashed.*
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I showed that abiongenesis doesn't happen because of the swan neck experiment and it means no extraterrestrial life in our solar system and Mars (latest search).
> 
> You are in denial because of your atheist religion and would make up anything, i.e. any reason or excuse, to not admit failure of your weird but precious (to you) atheistic abiogenesis beliefs.
> 
> It really is pathetic and funny beyond  belief .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism isn't a religion. (Neither is not believing in astrology!)
> It's a logical position after NO evidence for any god in 10,000 years, and the Bible-god-bible-god-bible Circle Jerk is not evidence you mentally ill freak.
> Abiogenesis is a yet not known but evidence of self-replicating non-living molecules is a good hint and at least points in one direction.
> 10,000 gods have no direction, just mayhem.
> 
> Now give the other patients a chance at the machine you 101% SICK mutha*****.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Well, Atheism is like a religion, while not a religion.

The "logical position" is non-religious. 

Logic says if we don't know something, we accept we don't know.

Is there a God? We don't know. 

Therefore an Atheist who say "there is no God" is as bad as a religious person who says "there is a God". It's the same thing. It's believing instead of accepting we can't possibly know.


----------



## abu afak

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, Atheism is like a religion, while not a religion.
> The "logical position" is non-religious.
> Logic says if we don't know something, we accept we don't know.
> Is there a God? We don't know.
> Therefore an Atheist who say "there is no God" is as bad as a religious person who says "there is a God". It's the same thing. It's believing instead of accepting we can't possibly know.


Poor logic, low IQ.

We know at least 75% of people/religions are wrong even if one stepped in it. Maybe 99.9% if, ie, The Northwest Indian's Bear God is right.
What religion you are is a 95% Geo-cultural accident of birth.
You were born in Mecca, Islam
Birmingham AL, Christian
Bombay, Hindu.
etc

We know the vast majority of 'gods' (fire, lightning, Sun, fertility, etc x10.000) are were already wrong as we explain more and more of them with real natural explanations.

*We know for sure every culture created a god (or100), NOT the reverse.*

Therefore I CAN say say there is no god for all practical purposes, fully realizing that proving that negative is impossible.

That's why ie, the religion of Pastafarianism/The Flying Spaghetti Monster (google) was created.
No one can "prove" it's not true/preposterous, but you can for all Practical purposes.

YOU/We can't "prove" there's not a 500' tall Liberace hiding behind Alpha Centauri controlling our daily lives, but that doesn't make it believable in any practical way.
You also, for that matter, can't "prove" I'm not god.
Again, that doesn't mean we can't say it's false.. for all practical purposes.

You rely of the fallacy of proving a negative, while I have shown some real probabilities and history of so-called 'gods.'
`


----------



## frigidweirdo

abu afak said:


> Poor logic, low IQ.



And what's that supposed to mean?


----------



## abu afak

frigidweirdo said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor logic, low IQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

*It means your stupid, and you proved it by NOT being able to deal with the vast majority of My post/logic, so had to Dishonestly omit it from the quote. 
We both know that.

`*


----------



## frigidweirdo

abu afak said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor logic, low IQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's that supposed to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It means your stupid, and you proved it by not being able to deal with the rest of my post/logic, so had to Dishonestly omit it from the quote.
> We both know that.
> 
> `*
Click to expand...

Bye then


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who claims to be in Mensa and can't figure out what evidence actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> A perfect illustration of why you need a bull ring rhetorical exchange.
Click to expand...

As opposed to a rhetorical exchange here?  Do you even logic before you type?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Your dogmatic beliefs, attacks against rival religions and your desire for government to implement your morally relativistic desires says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they don't. You guys just have no way to intellectually elevate your magical hooha, so your only option left is to try to drag opposing positions into the magical, shitty murk where your beliefs reside. It's like vandalizing your neighbor's house to make your own house look better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is you defending your religion against an attack from a rival religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, sure ding. Soothe yourself. Be my guest.
Click to expand...

You are the biggest religious fanatic here.  You are worse than the Westboro Baptists.


----------



## abu afak

frigidweirdo said:


> And what's that supposed to mean?


*


			
				me said:
			
		


			It means your stupid, and you proved it by not being able to deal with the rest of my post/logic, so had to Dishonestly omit it from the quote. 
We both know that.
		
Click to expand...

*


			
				Frigid said:
			
		

> Bye then


not just "Bye then", it's "Necessarily Bye" as you are not able to deal with/answer anything logical.
That is/was my meaty explanation of why I can say there is no god/s for all Practical Purposes. (without, of course, having the impossible burden of having to prove a negative).

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> As opposed to a rhetorical exchange here?


As opposed to scrutiny by more than one person at different times, which undermines your childish,  rhetorical dancing. Of course. Again, i should not have to explain that to a functioning adult. I think you are getting slower.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You are the biggest religious fanatic here. You are worse than the Westboro Baptists.


Like this horseshit. You always devolve into a quivering little crybaby who cant stay on topic, when a person undermines your garbage.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to a rhetorical exchange here?
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to scrutiny by more than one person at different times, which undermines your childish,  rhetorical dancing. Of course. Again, i should not have to explain that to a functioning adult. I think you are getting slower.
Click to expand...

You scared.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the biggest religious fanatic here. You are worse than the Westboro Baptists.
> 
> 
> 
> Like this horseshit. You always devolve into a quivering little crybaby who cant stay on topic, when a person undermines your garbage.
Click to expand...

Hands up!  Don't shoot!


----------



## Grumblenuts

ReinyDays said:


> The dilation of time comes from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ... though these are interesting questions about General Relativity ... my question is what is wrong with the derivation posted on Wikipedia ... or if you'd like, what is wrong with Special Relativity? ...


It's irksome.








						Special Relativity Is Irksome
					

This paper defines a new way to assess the scientific value of Einstein’s special theory of relativity by defining a …




					beyondmainstream.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Grumblenuts said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dilation of time comes from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ... though these are interesting questions about General Relativity ... my question is what is wrong with the derivation posted on Wikipedia ... or if you'd like, what is wrong with Special Relativity? ...
> 
> 
> 
> It's irksome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Relativity Is Irksome
> 
> 
> This paper defines a new way to assess the scientific value of Einstein’s special theory of relativity by defining a …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beyondmainstream.org
Click to expand...

Well aren't they all, on this kind of a scale. That's the challenge of "the Theory of Everything": the different theories do not fit well together. Theidea that all of them are true in all cases and at all times makes no sense, and is, therefore, "irksome".


----------



## Stryder50

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `


Concept of Intelligent Designer(Creator) does not require a theology/religion be attached.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Stryder50 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Concept of Intelligent Designer(Creator) does not require a theology/religion be attached.
Click to expand...

True! But you dont have to convince us. We are not the ones complaining that our theology contradicts the evidence.


----------



## ChemEngineer

abu afak said:


> *Stephen J Gould
> Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened...
> Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the Common Conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand...*
> *The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters**.*
> `



Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
The contradictions are NOT "supposed."  They are real and scientific.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view:  its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist,  relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
*“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”*

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.”  – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

“. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, _*The Great Evolution Mystery,* _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

“. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.”  (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

Would you like more?


----------



## Ringtone

ChemEngineer said:


> Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
> There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
> The contradictions are NOT "supposed."  They are real and scientific.
> 
> “WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view:  its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992
> 
> “Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion
> 
> “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
> 
> “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)
> 
> “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
> 
> “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
> 
> “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
> 
> “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).
> 
> “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
> 
> “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
> 
> “The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)
> 
> “Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)
> 
> Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist,  relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
> *“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
> The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”*
> 
> “A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)
> 
> “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)
> 
> “There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.”  – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> “. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, _*The Great Evolution Mystery,* _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> “. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> “One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.”  (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)
> 
> Would you like more?



There has never been any gaps in our knowledge regarding ultimate origins in the first place.  The greatest hoax of all is the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.  This is the atheist in the gap fallacy; a.k.a, nature did it!  But, then, the atheist is irrational.  He is a religious fanatic, and his religion is naturalism.   The naturalist's mythical notions of chemical evolution (abiogenesis) and biological evolution follow, and what we have here is a self-imposed delusion:  evolution is true because naturalism is true.

In the meantime back to reality, the imperatives of logic, mathematics and cosmological physics manifestly evince that the physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past.  Hence, the Cause of its existence is eternally self-subsistent, timeless, immaterial and of incomparable greatness.   Moreover, life comes from life only, and the circularly limited range of adaptive radiation does not and cannot affect the transmutation of one kind species into an entirely different kind of species.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
> There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
> The contradictions are NOT "supposed."  They are real and scientific.
> 
> “WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view:  its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992
> 
> “Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion
> 
> “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
> 
> “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)
> 
> “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
> 
> “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
> 
> “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
> 
> “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).
> 
> “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
> 
> “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
> 
> “The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)
> 
> “Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)
> 
> Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist,  relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
> *“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
> The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”*
> 
> “A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)
> 
> “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)
> 
> “There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.”  – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> “. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, _*The Great Evolution Mystery,* _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> “. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> “One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.”  (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)
> 
> Would you like more?


That’s fine. Another boatload of “quotes” you stole from political chick.

Creationers use “quotes” as appeals to authority. They troll creationer websites looking for “quotes” they copy and paste thinking they have found a weighty authority. In science, though, the ultimate authority is the evidence itself, so that is what writers refer to. “Quotes” from creationer charlatans cannot substitute for evidence.

As we see with the “quotes” so often edited, altered or parsed by the creationers, “quotes” are easy to edit and parse to alter what an author wrote or tried to convey. Science evolves and new understandings can develop over time. No single “quote” can do justice to science investigation. As we see so often with a few, identifiable religious extremists, It is extremely easy to find out-of-context quotes that clearly alter and misrepresent a scientists’s ideas. “Quotes” dumped in threads by those few identifiable religious extremists should be regarded with skepticism because of their history of promoting fraud.


----------



## abu afak

Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity Fallacy.



			
				watchingfromafar said:
			
		

> *Is common since found as a genetic trait found in our DNA*
> DNA_Structure+Key+Labelled.pn_NoBB.png (3024×3000) (wikimedia.org)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the above is the imprint of our creator,
> .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,..,& What created the rest
> 
> *In there.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., is what separates us from the rest*
> We are keeping our selves alive not only by using our instincts; but by our moral values.
> 
> I*f we loose them, all is lost*
> what do you think-?
> 
> Couldn’t a supercomputer compute this in real time-?
> Some can if programed with our instincts---(may be)
> 
> *Instinct*, _an inborn impulse or motivation to action typically performed in response to specific external stimuli. Today instinct is generally described as a stereotyped, apparently unlearned, genetically determined behaviour pattern.
> Defining instinct_
> 
> *As one to another, instincts are not the only thing that is keeping us alive.
> Jesus would tell you what is, if you only listed/listen with an open mind.*
> 
> Or so it seems to me
> How about you-? -
> -


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.


You're just using circular reasoning.  We know that the Bible, i.e. God, explained it first.  For example, we had to have EMS (light) to power the universe.  God explained the big bang with *His* singularity.  Atheists stole it with quantum mechanics singularity.  There is no such thing.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You're just using circular reasoning.  We know that the Bible, i.e. God, explained it first.  For example, we had to have EMS (light) to power the universe.  God explained the big bang with *His* singularity.  Atheists stole it with quantum mechanics singularity.  There is no such thing.


Your gods explained nothing in the bibles. The bibles were written by men. You're hoping to re-write your religionism by claiming that your gods authored or ''explained'' something when the bibles don't support that.


----------



## K9Buck

ChemEngineer said:


> Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
> There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
> The contradictions are NOT "supposed."  They are real and scientific.
> 
> “WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view:  its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992
> 
> “Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion
> 
> “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
> 
> “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)
> 
> “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
> 
> “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
> 
> “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
> 
> “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).
> 
> “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
> 
> “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
> 
> “The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)
> 
> “Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)
> 
> Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist,  relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
> *“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
> The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”*
> 
> “A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)
> 
> “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)
> 
> “There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.”  – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> “. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, _*The Great Evolution Mystery,* _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> “. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> “One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.”  (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)
> 
> Would you like more?


Great post from the best poster on this forum.


----------



## K9Buck

Ringtone said:


> But, then, the atheist is irrational. He is a religious fanatic, and his religion is naturalism.


That's because of what is described in 2 Corinthians 4:4


----------



## abu afak

K9Buck
Actually it's called "quote mining."
All Chem Eng does in this section.
It's a way of Lying by quoting people out of context, and other people who are not authorities on the topic.
Most oft used by Creationists.
The VAST majority of scientists, especially biologists and geneticists, believe in Evolution, which is the very Basis of modern biology.,
See my sig: A person/evolution Proponent/expert who is actually used/Abused by quote miners like Chem-Eng.

See ie,




__





						Quote mining
					

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...




					rationalwiki.org
				




In my thread on the Dishonest tactic:




__





						The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'
					

Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik. Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining  Quote mining (also contextomy) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




`


----------



## ChemEngineer

K9Buck said:


> Great post from the best poster on this forum.


*
God bless you and increase your territory, dear Friend.*


----------



## LibertyKid

Stryder50 said:


> Concept of Intelligent Designer(Creator) does not require a theology/religion be attached.


Agreed!  For some, the concept of 'God' hinges on the Christian, Jewish, Muslim concept of God which carries with it the "Westernized" (current american) moralistic version of a God of good and bad, we are all sinners, and the aspect of Heaven and Hell.  

If by 'god' we mean an intelligence that is outside of our scientific knowledge is plausible, I think science could get on board, and I do think there are many scientists that would agree that intelligent design is plausible.  Unfortunately, here in the US, God is the god of the Bible, which then is the roadmap for most of the discussions.

Intelligent design if very plausible, it just doesn't have to be God, Alah, or Yahwey.


----------



## abu afak

LibertyKid said:


> Agreed!  For some, the concept of 'God' hinges on the Christian, Jewish, Muslim concept of God which carries with it the "Westernized" (current american) moralistic version of a God of good and bad, we are all sinners, and the aspect of Heaven and Hell.
> 
> If by 'god' we mean an intelligence that is outside of our scientific knowledge is plausible, I think science could get on board, and I do think there are many scientists that would agree that intelligent design is plausible.  Unfortunately, here in the US, God is the god of the Bible, which then is the roadmap for most of the discussions.
> 
> Intelligent design if very plausible, it just doesn't have to be God, Alah, or Yahwey.


ID is just stealth creationism.
Wiki:
*Intelligent design* (*ID*) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9]
The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[1]

Although the phrase _intelligent design_ had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] *its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.*[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7]
This led to the 2005 _Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District_ trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.

ID seeks to challenge the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[2][16] though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[17] As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.[1][n 2] ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design.[18][n 3] Critics of ID find a false dichotomy in the premise that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design.[19][20]"..."









						Intelligent design - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




`


----------



## abu afak

LibertyKid said:


> ...Intelligent design if very plausible, it just doesn't have to be God, Alah, or Yahwey.


No it isn't.
It's just another 'Goddidit' Fallacy.
It has no basis in fact.
Nothing was intelligently 'designed.'
What's left of living things is what adapted best.
Many more Unintelligently 'created' living things have vanished than now exist as conditions on earth changed, leaving us with the mutations that adapted best... and they/we are all still evolving.
The assumption that we/they are all perfect the final result is myopic, arrogant, and ignorant.

`


----------



## ChemEngineer

According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.


Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.

(Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists,  _Social Forces_. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)


LibertyKid said:


> Agreed!  For some, the concept of 'God' hinges on the Christian, Jewish, Muslim concept of God which carries with it the "Westernized" (current american) moralistic version of a God of good and bad, we are all sinners, and the aspect of Heaven and Hell.
> 
> If by 'god' we mean an intelligence that is outside of our scientific knowledge is plausible, I think science could get on board, and I do think there are many scientists that would agree that intelligent design is plausible.  Unfortunately, here in the US, God is the god of the Bible, which then is the roadmap for most of the discussions.
> 
> Intelligent design if very plausible, it just doesn't have to be God, Alah, or Yahwey.



RIIIIIIGHT, the intelligence could be Harvey the Spaceman.

In case you didn't know, "science" is ALREADY "on board."
The Anthropic Principle is well established and to many, provides statistical proof of
Nature's God, not Harvey the Spaceman or any other fantasy you entertain.


----------



## LibertyKid

abu afak said:


> No it isn't.
> It's just another 'Goddidit' Fallacy.
> It has no basis in fact.
> Nothing was intelligently 'designed.'
> What's left of living things is what adapted best.
> Many more Unintelligently 'created' living things have vanished than now exist as conditions on earth changed, leaving us with the mutations that adapted best... and they/we are all still evolving.
> The assumption that we/they are all perfect the final result is myopic, arrogant, and ignorant.
> 
> `


I think you're still viewing 'god' in a theocratic essence.  I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong at all as what you're portraying is very plausible for a theoretical and scientific approach. 

But to imagine, an essence is potentially responsible, is plausible.  Even so plausible that this intelligence could have flipped the switch walked out of the room, and shut the door to never return again to its own creation leaving no evidence for us.  All I know is that our understanding of the universe is largely unknown and or theoretical and to think that our universe may have an intelligent designer is very plausible.


----------



## LibertyKid

ChemEngineer said:


> According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.
> 
> 
> Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.
> 
> (Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists,  _Social Forces_. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)
> 
> 
> RIIIIIIGHT, the intelligence could be Harvey the Spaceman.
> 
> In case you didn't know, "science" is ALREADY "on board."
> The Anthropic Principle is well established and to many, provides statistical proof of
> Nature's God, not Harvey the Spaceman or any other fantasy you entertain.


Why are you assuming what you think I know or believe?


----------



## abu afak

ChemEngineer said:


> *According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.*
> 
> 
> Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.
> 
> (Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists,  _Social Forces_. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)
> 
> 
> RIIIIIIGHT, the intelligence could be Harvey the Spaceman.
> 
> In case you didn't know, "science" is ALREADY "on board."
> The Anthropic Principle is well established and to many, provides statistical proof of
> Nature's God, not Harvey the Spaceman or any other fantasy you entertain.


"300 scientists of the last 300 years" is deceptive, dated, irrelevant And...
*PLAGIARIZED from crackpot blog. (or 3)* (The many Christians crucial to science - The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network)

*DISHONESTY POSTED with NO SOURCE. (like ALL your 'quotes,' and stats)*
Embarrassingly religious POS's one and all.

In fact: Current numbers of elite scientists.

*Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'*
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.[/B]
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor, 11 Jun 2008
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' - Telegraph
...
A Decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a Rise in average Intelligence, he claimed. But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics. Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

*A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3% believed in God - at a time when 68.5% of the general UK population described themselves as believers. A separate poll in the 90s found only 7% of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.*

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts. He told Times Higher Education magazine:.. I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population.
Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with Higher IQs tend NOT to believe in God."...

````

*ChemEngineer can't debate anything.*
Just copy/*PLAGIARIZE deceptive out of context Crap from Kweationist websites he Never Links.
Using the exact quotes in an exact order without sourcing them is PLAGIARISM as well.*
He's a 100% FRAUD.

`


----------



## ChemEngineer

LibertyKid said:


> Why are you assuming what you think I know or believe?


You agree with design, but deny THE Designer and make up some meaningless nonsense, viz., 
"All I know is that our understanding of the universe is largely unknown and or theoretical and to think that our universe* may have* an intelligent designer is very plausible."
(Emphasis added)


“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” - Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997

Allan Sandage, widely regarded as the father of modern astronomy, discoverer of quasars: * “I find it quite improbable that order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something rather than nothing.”*

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson


I have many more quotes like these from eminent scientists who do not mealymouth science and its Creator.  Would you like some more?


----------



## abu afak

LibertyKid said:


> I think you're still viewing 'god' in a theocratic essence.  I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong at all as what you're portraying is very plausible for a theoretical and scientific approach.
> 
> But to imagine, an essence is potentially responsible, is plausible.  Even so plausible that this intelligence could have flipped the switch walked out of the room, and shut the door to never return again to its own creation leaving no evidence for us.  All I know is that our understanding of the universe is largely unknown and or theoretical and to think that our universe may have an intelligent designer is very plausible.


You're contradicting yourself to try and stay in the game after I gutted any 'intelligence' in design.
So you moved the goal posts from Intelligent design which is comprehensive and of course needs a designER/God... to just "flipping a switch and leaving." Unintelligent/non-design.
Creationist crap and of course all still fantasy.

The most straightforward/logical explanation is the same one we should have used for 10,000 other busted 'gods,' (fire, lightning, fertility, etc)..
We don't know/We don't know Yet. (thus the OP)
Goodbye.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Bible explains exactly jack shit. That's why we had to wait thousands of years for the secular scientific enlightenment in order to understand anything about the world.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> You agree with design, but deny THE Designer and make up some meaningless nonsense, viz.,
> "All I know is that our understanding of the universe is largely unknown and or theoretical and to think that our universe* may have* an intelligent designer is very plausible."
> (Emphasis added)
> 
> 
> “I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics
> 
> “The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” - Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997
> 
> Allan Sandage, widely regarded as the father of modern astronomy, discoverer of quasars: * “I find it quite improbable that order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something rather than nothing.”*
> 
> “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson
> 
> 
> I have many more quotes like these from eminent scientists who do not mealymouth science and its Creator.  Would you like some more?


The phony "quotes" that creationers dump in threads is simply their last, desperate effort to hurl their into people's faces..


----------



## LibertyKid

abu afak said:


> You're contradicting yourself to try and stay in the game after I gutted any 'intelligence' in design.
> So you moved the goal posts from Intelligent design which is comprehensive and of course needs a designER/God... to just "flipping a switch and leaving." Unintelligent/non-design.
> Creationist crap and of course all still fantasy.
> 
> The most straightforward/logical explanation is the same one we should have used for 10,000 other busted 'gods,' (fire, lightning, fertility, etc)..
> We don't know/We don't know Yet. (thus the OP)
> Goodbye.
> `


I didn't move a goal post.  All I said is that a designer is plausible and they/it could have created and left creation to itself to do the rest leaving room for evolution and all other elements of the universe to do its thing while leaving no identifiable print left behind for science to find.  How is that not plausible?

If I write an astounding book, fiction, non-fiction, (topic not necessary), leave that book for someone to find with no notation of its origin, someone is going to pick up that book, read it, and realize that someone knew what they were writing about.  But they may never find out who actually wrote the book.  They can study writing style, language used, rhythm, tempo, literary devises etc.,  People may determine some interesting theories on the books author, but in the end, all they know is that there is author who's name is unknown.  (This maybe a terrible analogy as I'm deriving it as I typed it). 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel you're coming from a 'hate god' perspective and that 'god' has to be this moral religious device.  I'm saying that a god/creator is plausible and could just be watching this shit show they created eating a box of popcorn and plays no part now.  How is that no plausible?


----------



## abu afak

LibertyKid said:


> I didn't move a goal post.  All I said is that a designer is plausible and they/it could have created and left creation to itself to do the rest leaving room for evolution and all other elements of the universe to do its thing while leaving no identifiable print left behind for science to find.  How is that not plausible?
> 
> If I write an astounding book, fiction, non-fiction, (topic not necessary), leave that book for someone to find with no notation of its origin, someone is going to pick up that book, read it, and realize that someone knew what they were writing about.  But they may never find out who actually wrote the book.  They can study writing style, language used, rhythm, tempo, literary devises etc.,  People may determine some interesting theories on the books author, but in the end, all they know is that there is author who's name is unknown.  (This maybe a terrible analogy as I'm deriving it as I typed it).
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel you're coming from a 'hate god' perspective and that 'god' has to be this moral religious device.  I'm saying that a god/creator is plausible and could just be watching this shit show they created eating a box of popcorn and plays no part now.  How is that no plausible?


1. Anything is possible, less is "plausible."
You have made no case for the more likely word. (unspun)

2. The analogy is poor because we don't know how we got here. It may or may not be "astounding," it may be routine. We do not know.  Many "astounding" things, like earthquakes or supernovas, don't need "an author," and saying so is a illogical presumption of intelligence/ID.
Things ostensibly intelligently created get destroyed over time. All life forms change regularly, galaxies collide, stars explode.
The Milky Way will collide with Andromeda in a few billion years.
Some successor creature may look back at us as primitive as we do apes.
How pompous 'we' (esp religious books) are thinking we are the ultimate creation. We are just on the continuum of the evo/adaptation train. (if the whole planet doesn't perish first.)

3. As I've said here before, if any Evidence of a god turns up, I'm in!
If the stars all line up one night and form the word 'VISHNU,' I will be truly thrilled and become a believer.
Of course, this will mean suicide for Tens of millions of Christians, Muslims, etc, but not any atheists.

3a. 'God hate' is your spun term for atheism, god disbelief.
I don't believe there is a god because there is no evidence after all this time.
In fact, we know at least 75% of people are wrong as they have different ones with different creation myths... even if one stepped in it.
*So one thing we Do know is man created gods! Lots of them.*
Thousands now on the trash heap of natural explanations, and if read literally, current Holy Book's creation myths don't look good relative to what we do now know.
So I can wait for a truly "plausible" explanation without creating a... God of the Gaps.

Many spun terms and presumptions in your debate and/or belief system.

`


----------



## LibertyKid

abu afak said:


> 1. Anything is possible, less is "plausible."
> You have made no case for the more likely word. (unspun)



So what you're saying is.... there's still a chance.  Plausible or possible?  Semantics?



> 2. The analogy is poor because we don't know how we got here. It may or may not be "astounding," it may be routine. We do not know.  Many "astounding" things, like earthquakes or supernovas, don't need "an author," and saying so is a fallacious presumption of intelligence/ID.
> Things ostensibly intelligently created get destroyed over time. All life forms change regularly, galaxies collide, stars explode.
> The Milky Way will collide with Andromeda in a few billion years.
> Some successor creature may look back at us as primitive as we do apes.
> How pompous 'we' (esp religious books) are thinking we are the ultimate creation. We are just on the continuum of the evo/adaptation train. (if the whole planet doesn't perish first.)


First, the analogy isn't perfect, I stated as such. 
Hypothetically speaking.  Creator creates universe, even the very beginning of the universe, with no existence of earth as we know today existing.  But this newly created universe has all the inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc., to allow our universe to expand and grow as we see today. This creator has no vested interest in humans.  Isn't interested in our worship, morality, values or anything that has to do with being a 'god'.  This isn't plausible?



> 3. As I've said here before, if any Evidence of a god turns up, I'm in!
> If the stars all line up one night and form the word 'VISHNU,' I will be truly thrilled and become a believer.
> Of course, this will mean suicide for Tens of millions of Christians, Muslims, etc, but not any atheists.



Awesome, good for you



> 3b. 'God hate' is your spun term for atheism, god disbelief.
> I don't believe there is a god because there is no evidence after all this time.
> In fact, we know at least 75% of people are wrong as they have different ones with different creation myths... even if one stepped in it.
> *So one thing we Do know is man created gods! Lots of them.*
> Thousands now on the trash heap of natural explanations, and if read literally, current Holy Book's creation myths don't look good relative to what we do now know.
> So I can wait for a truly "plausible" explanation without creating a... God of the Gaps.
> 
> Many spun terms and presumptions in your debate and/or belief system.



Why focus so much on terms.  I'm reading your posts and making a mental evaluation of your position without going through every single post you have ever made.  

Not sure how atheists can hate something they don't believe in.  

I don't disagree that there is no evidence for God.  I suppose that also depends on what can or can't be considered evidence.  For some of faith, nature points to a god.  For some, the universe points to a god.  Good vs evil points to a god.  
Man has created god(s).  I tend to think that man's idea of a possible creator/god/designer concept throughout most of our history means something.  I understand that many of these gods were created to explain the unexplainable.  But who came up with the concept of god as a way to explain the unknowable without any evidence of god?  Why would someone 4000+ years ago witness a naturally occurring event and decide that it must be some unseen, richly unfathomable, all powerful god that was the cause?  

Just thinking out loud.  Trying to have a reasonable discourse without the vitriol as I am truly not defending any one positiol


----------



## ChemEngineer

LibertyKid said:


> Why would someone 4000+ years ago witness a naturally occurring event and decide that it must be some unseen, richly unfathomable, all powerful god that was the cause?


1.  The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ was NOT a "naturally occurring event."
It was witnessed by hundreds of people.
“I say unequivocally that the *resurrection* of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” - Sir *Lionel* *Luckhoo, the most successful attorney in the world according to Guiness Book of Records*

2.  Turning water into wine.

3.  Raising the dead.


----------



## abu afak

LibertyKid said:


> So what you're saying is.... there's still a chance.  Plausible or possible?  Semantics?


Plausible is something reasonably likely.
I would not consider supernatural beings plausible, even if possible.



LibertyKid said:


> First, the analogy isn't perfect, I stated as such.
> Hypothetically speaking.  Creator creates universe, even the very beginning of the universe, with no existence of earth as we know today existing.  But this newly created universe has all the inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc., to allow our universe to expand and grow as we see today. This creator has no vested interest in humans.  Isn't interested in our worship, morality, values or anything that has to do with being a 'god'.  This isn't plausible?


The analogy, like part one of my response is SPUN by you to make room for a (more plausible).. god.
In this case you post AS IF as if there's this amazing book (a coherent intelligent work) instead of a chaotic universe.
We don't know any such thing.




LibertyKid said:


> Awesome, good for you


Yes, I unspun another of your terms 'god hate' for atheists.




LibertyKid said:


> Why focus so much on terms.  I'm reading your posts and making a mental evaluation of your position without going through every single post you have ever made.



Because your imprecise and spun language changes the debate if I allow it.
You ain't smart enough to pull that shlt on me.
Then again, maybe you believe and are pushing something is a likely explanation Because you think it is.



LibertyKid said:


> I don't disagree that there is no evidence for God.  I suppose that also depends on what can or can't be considered evidence.  For some of faith, nature points to a god.  For some, the universe points to a god.  Good vs evil points to a god.
> Man has created god(s).  I tend to think that man's idea of a possible creator/god/designer concept throughout most of our history means something.  I understand that many of these gods were created to explain the unexplainable.  But who came up with the concept of god as a way to explain the unknowable without any evidence of god?  Why would someone 4000+ years ago witness a naturally occurring event and decide that it must be some unseen, richly unfathomable, all powerful god that was the cause?


Faith is belief without evidence.
Everyone wants answers: some need it now and make up stuff.
God of the Gaps.
That impatient/illogical tendency was the justification for all the past false gods. Fire, Lightning, etc.
Man/we also always did drugs to get out of his head. Still does.

`


----------



## Grumblenuts

LibertyKid said:


> So what you're saying is.... there's still a chance. Plausible or possible? Semantics?


True believers say "plausible." Agnostics say "possible." Atheists say highly* implausible* (but still possible).


> Hypothetically speaking. Creator creates universe, even the very beginning of the universe, with no existence of earth as we know today existing. But this newly created universe has all the inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc., to allow our universe to expand and grow as we see today. This creator has no vested interest in humans. Isn't interested in our worship, morality, values or anything that has to do with being a 'god'. This isn't plausible?


Any hypothetical creation will likely have "inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc." so you're not saying anything. Also, worrying about a creator who apparently has "no vested interest in humans" would logically be a waste of any human's time. It is. Fear of death begets irrational belief in human immortality, most often in exchange for good behavior. That's why people have wished for and insisted upon gods and creators. It's just a coping mechanism. Wishful thinking.


> For some of faith, nature points to a god. For some, the universe points to a god. Good vs evil points to a god.


That last one requires no faith? That a fact, Jack? Evidence?


> Just thinking out loud. Trying to have a reasonable discourse without the vitriol as I am truly not defending any one positiol


Perhaps try a little harder.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> 1.  The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ was NOT a "naturally occurring event."
> It was witnessed by hundreds of people.
> “I say unequivocally that the *resurrection* of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” - Sir *Lionel* *Luckhoo, the most successful attorney in the world according to Guiness Book of Records*
> 
> 2.  Turning water into wine.
> 
> 3.  Raising the dead.


Nonsense. There were no witnesses to the Jeebus allegedly rising from the dead. 

The hyper-religious tend to be the most dishonest.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Bible explains exactly jack shit. That's why we had to wait thousands of years for the secular scientific enlightenment in order to understand anything about the world.


The Bible and creation science ruled the world until the lies of atheist science (evolution and evolutionary thinking) took over.  It's unfortunate that creation isn't taught in our schools, but once that happens again, then science will be balanced and we will be back on the right track again.  The students will figure out that evolution can't happen and that it's been a lie.  There is no evidence that it happens.  This is going on all over the world today as students question the science that is being taught to them.  It's silly like the erroneous statements you make all over the place here.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The Bible and creation science ruled the world until the lies of atheist science (evolution and evolutionary thinking) took over.  It's unfortunate that creation isn't taught in our schools, but once that happens again, then science will be balanced and we will be back on the right track again.  The students will figure out that evolution can't happen and that it's been a lie.  There is no evidence that it happens.  This is going on all over the world today as students question the science that is being taught to them.  It's silly like the erroneous statements you make all over the place here.


That was pretty darn funny, except the part about your sociopathy.


----------



## LibertyKid

Grumblenuts said:


> True believers say "plausible." Agnostics say "possible." Atheists say highly* implausible* (but still possible).
> 
> Any hypothetical creation will likely have "inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc." so you're not saying anything. Also, worrying about a creator who apparently has "no vested interest in humans" would logically be a waste of any human's time. It is. Fear of death begets irrational belief in human immortality, most often in exchange for good behavior. That's why people have wished for and insisted upon gods and creators. It's just a coping mechanism. Wishful thinking.
> 
> That last one requires no faith? That a fact, Jack? Evidence?
> 
> Perhaps try a little harder.



Note, I don't use plausible as any notion of my support for anything. You could swap it with likely, possible, not at all likely, etc.,  But I leave the possibility open.

As vast as our universe is, isn't it likely that a creator could create, and move on.  I pose that a creator also doesn't have to be omnipresent, all knowing and maybe even all powerful.  Certainly a creator would have to exist outside of our physical world or have mastership or domain over it, but does the creator have complete domain over time, physics?  I don't know.  Just asking.  I'm of the position that if a god/creator exists, and in order for man to have free will, this god can't know the future or have it predetermined.  Therefore there is some constraint to the person of god/creator, which is very outside of contemporary westernized Christian God belief.  So I posit that a creator's creation doesn't necessarily have to have an eternal or even a finite purpose.  As I suggested earlier, the switch could have been flipped billions of years ago and here we are, just an effect of the cause.  During the last billion or so years, perhaps this creator is creating other things or has vested interest in other god/creator chores and hasn't had time to come back. 

The "waisting our time" I equate that to the Christian stance of "why create us if to just die" discussion.  A god/creator can do just that.  

Or maybe there is something to us.

And it is likely, possible, plausible, (insert whatever term you would like here) that a creator's plan for earth isn't what man wants or dreams of.  I certainly understand that a belief in a moral god sets the stage for eternal spiritual life and give's people hope in an after life.  Nothing that I haven't heard before.  It's possible that death is it.  It's also possible that something beyond our conscience exists that isn't anything like a heaven or hell scenario.  What if spirituality and the eternal plane is greater than our minds can comprehend?  

I'm not going to change anyone's mind.  I appreciate some of the responses.  And for some of you, perhaps lighten up a bit.  The tone of your responses are angry, bitter.  Some like reasonable discourse, even if you don't agree or find the position absolutely wrong, there is a certain grace that can be applied.  Perhaps it could do you well.  

IMHO, the universe is great.  It is vast.  It violent, angry, and pretty much everything outside of this planet will kill us in a matter of seconds.  But there is a beauty to it all.  There is a synchronistic quality that exists that points to a refined and eloquent engineer.  Perhaps we are the pinnacle of that engineering.  Perhaps we are just a bi product of a much bigger picture.  Or, we are just chance.  It's all plausible


----------



## Grumblenuts

LibertyKid said:


> I'm of the position that if a god/creator exists, and in order for man to have free will, this god can't know the future or have it predetermined. Therefore there is some constraint to the person of god/creator, which is very outside of contemporary westernized Christian God belief. So I posit that a creator's creation doesn't necessarily have to have an eternal or even a finite purpose.


Then no supernatural "creator" is required, called for, nor even suggested. Certainly not ID nor it being about mankind. Nature suffices. I always suggest just calling it the Aether or Nature "God" if one simply must have a god. Nature is not random. It's constantly building electrical artworks from scratch. Living and non-living.


----------



## Hollie

LibertyKid said:


> Note, I don't use plausible as any notion of my support for anything. You could swap it with likely, possible, not at all likely, etc.,  But I leave the possibility open.
> 
> As vast as our universe is, isn't it likely that a creator could create, and move on.  I pose that a creator also doesn't have to be omnipresent, all knowing and maybe even all powerful.  Certainly a creator would have to exist outside of our physical world or have mastership or domain over it, but does the creator have complete domain over time, physics?  I don't know.  Just asking.  I'm of the position that if a god/creator exists, and in order for man to have free will, this god can't know the future or have it predetermined.  Therefore there is some constraint to the person of god/creator, which is very outside of contemporary westernized Christian God belief.  So I posit that a creator's creation doesn't necessarily have to have an eternal or even a finite purpose.  As I suggested earlier, the switch could have been flipped billions of years ago and here we are, just an effect of the cause.  During the last billion or so years, perhaps this creator is creating other things or has vested interest in other god/creator chores and hasn't had time to come back.
> 
> The "waisting our time" I equate that to the Christian stance of "why create us if to just die" discussion.  A god/creator can do just that.
> 
> Or maybe there is something to us.
> 
> And it is likely, possible, plausible, (insert whatever term you would like here) that a creator's plan for earth isn't what man wants or dreams of.  I certainly understand that a belief in a moral god sets the stage for eternal spiritual life and give's people hope in an after life.  Nothing that I haven't heard before.  It's possible that death is it.  It's also possible that something beyond our conscience exists that isn't anything like a heaven or hell scenario.  What if spirituality and the eternal plane is greater than our minds can comprehend?
> 
> I'm not going to change anyone's mind.  I appreciate some of the responses.  And for some of you, perhaps lighten up a bit.  The tone of your responses are angry, bitter.  Some like reasonable discourse, even if you don't agree or find the position absolutely wrong, there is a certain grace that can be applied.  Perhaps it could do you well.
> 
> IMHO, the universe is great.  It is vast.  It violent, angry, and pretty much everything outside of this planet will kill us in a matter of seconds.  But there is a beauty to it all.  There is a synchronistic quality that exists that points to a refined and eloquent engineer.  Perhaps we are the pinnacle of that engineering.  Perhaps we are just a bi product of a much bigger picture.  Or, we are just chance.  It's all plausible


I've never understood why anyone would suggest that nature requires supernatural ''designer gods'' when nothing in nature shows evidence of supernaturalism not a single event in all of human history can be attributed to any of the thousands of gods invented by humans.


----------



## james bond

LibertyKid said:


> As vast as our universe is, isn't it likely that a creator could create, and move on.


No, our creator created and left the our heaven of Earth and the universe due to sin.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> No, our creator created and left the our heaven of Earth and the universe due to sin.


No. Amun Ra did no such thing.


----------



## LibertyKid

Hollie said:


> I've never understood why anyone would suggest that nature requires supernatural ''designer gods'' when nothing in nature shows evidence of supernaturalism not a single event in all of human history can be attributed to any of the thousands of gods invented by humans.


Huh... Okay. Does a car have human attributes?  Why would anything need to display supernaturalism attributes to prove that it was created by the supernatural?

Attribute of existence, I feel, is enough to say that it is possible/plausible/likely/not likely that something of intelligence created our universe.


----------



## Hollie

LibertyKid said:


> Huh... Okay. Does a car have human attributes?  Why would anything need to display supernaturalism attributes to prove that it was created by the supernatural?
> 
> Attribute of existence, I feel, is enough to say that it is possible/plausible/likely/not likely that something of intelligence created our universe.


I think if you're going to posit supernatural mechanisms as an explanation for existence, you might want to identify something about existence that displays supernatural underpinnings. Is there anything you can identify in nature that requires supernaturalism as an explanation? Has there ever been an instance, at any time in history that you can point to and say, "see, without the interference of supernaturalism, that event could not have occurred"?

Feelings are not a reliable mechanism for suggesting supernaturalism as a cause. All of the gods invented by humans over history have been invented with "feelings" being used to ascribe events in nature to the hands of those gods. 

None of the human inventions of gods have ever made themselves known in a way that is rationally demonstrated with supportable evidence. History shows us that with time, every conception of gods have been swept away and looked upon as myth and curiosities of human fears and superstitions.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, (not the Islamist group), worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as much a relic of history as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Relics, all. Nothing more than tales and fables. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

As time goes by, and gods don’t return to earth to slaughter much of humanity, as gods don’t prove salvation, humanity grows further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. The fact is, aside from your "feelings", you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods as little more than paper shufflers


----------



## Grumblenuts

LibertyKid said:


> something of intelligence created our universe


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's why we had to wait thousands of years for the secular scientific enlightenment in order to understand anything about the world.


The scientific evidence and enlightenment that you and abu afak are wrong about humans from ape-humans is that there are no bipedal apes.  Never was.  Never will.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> No. Amun Ra did no such thing.


The falsification for creation science is evolution.  Atheists have no falsification for evolution.  Thus, evolution is a lie.  Now, you're allowed to s&t.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The falsification for creation science is evolution.  Atheists have no falsification for evolution.  Thus, evolution is a lie.  Now, you're allowed to s&t.


Such religious Cult nonsense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LibertyKid said:


> Attribute of existence, I feel, is enough to say that it is possible/plausible/likely/not likely that something of intelligence created our universe.


Not likely?


----------



## Michael1985

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `



As long as there are gaps in human knowledge of the natural world, there will be room for belief in God to fill them. It does not constitute proof or evidence for the existence of the divine.


----------



## Grumblenuts

There will always be gaps in human knowledge. The moment scientific investigation uncovers anything the language describing it grows all the more sophisticated inviting new questions. One can wash a dirty rug with soap and water a million times. It will still contain and immediately attract more dirt. Most eventually learn to content themselves with _reasonably clean_. A range of _within reason always exists _between too little and ridiculous. Going beyond reason invites only waste and insanity.


----------



## abu afak

We had another breakout from Toofbreak
I've really covered/Destroyed all the common theist arguments with my OPs already.

but toofbreak actually claimed 'god of the Gaps' as his theme

------



toobfreak said:


> I have to ask, Hollie, you DO understand that "science" is just a recent invention of man here on planet Earth about 2000 years years ago developed since in a universe nearly 14 billion years old?  The Earth compared to the universe is smaller than a grain of sand on all the beaches of the planet.  That makes your statement that nothing in science supports a god-created universe about as silly as wondering why a pebble on the beach hasn't affected the currents of the Atlantic Ocean!



Oh look! argument from Ignorance/Incredulity!



toobfreak said:


> *Truth is that science is highly flawed with huge Gaps* in it.


 You couldn't possibly have missed my 4 YEAR Running thread. (From July 2017 to Aug 4, 2021!
*"God of the Gaps"*
But I guess you felt self-conscious that your post in it would have been a fine example and Pre-Refutedas to simple logic
WTF!





__





						God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")
					

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.  If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




`




toobfreak said:


> *Nothing in religion or science suggests that God waved a magic wand*----- truth is that no one knows exactly how or what happened.  So if you want to use the term "magic" like some primitive for anything above your understanding, fine, but the oldest records we have going back to the beginning of civilization 5,000 years ago passed down through the ages from the Vedas tells us this is how it happened and has been repeated over and over again in the historical record.



LIE. 
Genesis, you know, YOUR book suggests he waved a magic wand in 6 days.
WTF!




toobfreak said:


> Actually, nothing in science precludes the existence and role of God neither!  When it comes down to brass tacks, the only real argument against God by science is that it or He is simply one more thing science as yet can neither prove nor disprove, explain nor dismiss, so the general consensus among scientists is to generally discount those things not at least supported by conjecture, theory or experimentation.  That leaves it up to the individual, much like picking the winner of tomorrow's football to pick where their beliefs fall:
> 
> ATHEISTS fall on the side of skepticism because God has not come up and overtly revealed himself to THEM, appeared in Washington DC, nor made any overt proof self-evident that one can measure with a yardstick.
> 
> THEISTS fall on the side of belief (faith) because down through the millenniums, the holy scriptures tell us it is so and countless people report that God has revealed himself to them through the minds and hearts of people that he IS.
> 
> Take your pick.


Actually Nothing suggests god and that's it.
We just don't know what happened YET (like Fire, Lightning, and Fertility) but that's no reason to believe in a god now as it wasn't then.

The FACT is what god you believe in is a geoCULTural accident of birth, not a discernible truth, and takes Indoctrination not learning or experimentation.

God of the Gaps, again is the most common fallacious attempt and yours is as ridiculous as any and all of them.

`


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> *With one question, you prick.
> 
> How did the universe come to exist?
> 
> Game, set, and match.*



Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is We Don't know/Know YET, not 'god.'.

They made up Fire, Lightning and Fertility gods because they didn't know YET.
But when they found out they dropped them.
*
IOW, it is NOT logical to make up a god for everything/anything you don't understand.*
Never worked yet.

Your FALLACY (the most common logic lapse for god) is called 'God of the Gaps.' 
See the OP.
Game, Set, and Match!

`

`


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is *We Don't know*/Know YET, not 'god.'


Thanks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Thanks.


So will you admit that you don't know, either?


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So will you admit that you don't know, either?


I have admitted that Creation is what I have faith in.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> I have admitted that Creation is what I have faith in.


Another dodge. Even having faith in creation does not mean you know HOW the universe was created. You are only saying you know that God did it.

So again I ask: will you now admit that you don't know, either?


----------



## abu afak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Another dodge. Even having faith in creation does not mean you know HOW the universe was created. You are only saying you know that God did it.
> 
> So again I ask: will you now admit that you don't know, either?


He already did admit it.
He said he has "Faith" not evidence/reason.
Faith is belief WithOut evidence.
(a Billion others have faith in Vishnu)
`


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Another dodge. Even having faith in creation does not mean you know HOW the universe was created. You are only saying you know that God did it.
> 
> So again I ask: will you now admit that you don't know, either?



LOL

And I will answer again, it is my faith.

You don't get to choose my answer.


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> He already did admit it.
> He said he has "Faith" not evidence/reason.
> Faith is belief *WithOut evidence.*
> (a Billion others have faith in Vishnu)



LOL

Everything you see is evidence of a creation. DUH


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> And I will answer again, it is my faith.


So that's your final answer? It is impossible, because you believe it is impossible?

That's not an answer. Sorry. Maybe that flies in Sunday school, but not in the real world.

But I can tell you really don't want to go any further. That's fine. See ya.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> LOL
> 
> Everything you see is evidence of a creation. DUH


If nothing can ever possibly be evidence against, then none of it is evidence. You are mangling the concept of the evidence.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `


God's mind, is not like our mind. Our natural mind is apposed to God's mind. All we know is what is seen. Good that is not seen overcomes evil that is not seen. Evil people try to use what is seen to get rid of evil. That never works, and yet people try, over and over again.  That which is not seen made what is seen. We that are seen are using that which is seen. God's free gifts to us. We need to be the same way with each other.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's not an answer. Sorry. Maybe that flies in Sunday school, but not in the real world.



It flies here too, because that is my answer.

Deal with it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> It flies here too, because that is my answer.
> 
> Deal with it.


Hmm, no , you failed. I will be fine. I am sure you will, too.


----------



## abu afak

Iamartiewhitefox said:


> God's mind, is not like our mind. Our natural mind is apposed to God's mind. All we know is what is seen. Good that is not seen overcomes evil that is not seen. Evil people try to use what is seen to get rid of evil. That never works, and yet people try, over and over again.  That which is not seen made what is seen. We that are seen are using that which is seen. God's free gifts to us. We need to be the same way with each other.


There is NO 'god' in evidence, and you claiming to know 'his' mind is even more riDICKulous.

`


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hmm, no , you failed. I will be fine. I am sure you will, too


If that makes you feel better, run with that.

It's all you have at this point.


----------



## abu afak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hmm, no , you failed. I will be fine. I am sure you will, too.


He was already caught and stuck with it.
He did not have evidence and admitted it was just his 'Faith.'
Gameover for the PukeU Troll.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> If that makes you feel better, run with that.
> 
> It's all you have at this point.


You can whine until bedtime, but, in the morning, you still will have dodged the question. 

"I say it is impossible because I say it is impossible."

Not gonna get you very far in any intelligent company.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You can whine until bedtime, but, in the morning, you still will have dodged the question.
> 
> "I say it is impossible because I say it is impossible."
> 
> Not gonna get you very far in any intelligent company.


Whine?!?      


I know you're struggling to deal with the fact that your faith in Science leaves you with many questions.  Be strong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Whine?!?
> 
> 
> I know you're struggling to deal with the fact that your faith in Science leaves you with many questions.  Be strong.


ah yes, try to distract. This childish tactic always cracks me up, since your posts are all still there for everyone to read.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

abu afak said:


> There is NO 'god' in evidence, and you claiming to know his mind is even more riDICKulous.
> 
> `


You said  it, not me. I know God's mind. You used the word him.
Know Jesus. Know God. It is simple. The Unseen Father spoke through Jesus. The Unseen Father keeps Jesus alive.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ah yes, try to distract. This childish tactic always cracks me up, since your posts are all still there for everyone to read.



Yours are too.

"We/I don't know".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Yours are too.
> 
> "We/I don't know".


That isn't a "tactic". That is someone being honest. Which is probably why it looks so foreign to someone who has been fooled by iron aged mythology into thinking he has all the answers. But actually does not have any.


----------



## abu afak

Iamartiewhitefox said:


> You said  it, not me. I know God's mind. You used the word him.
> Know Jesus. Know God. It is simple. The Unseen Father spoke through Jesus. The Unseen Father keeps Jesus alive.


This is the Science section
If you want to preach/continue preaching/proselytizing, get your Stupid delusional a$$ over to Religion.
(where Freaks like you and PukeU are protected)'
`


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That isn't a "tactic". That is someone being honest. Which is probably why it looks so foreign to someone who has been fooled by iron aged mythology into *thinking he has all the answers. But actually does not have any.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


>


Yes, that's you. You even think "gawd did it!" explains stuff.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, that's you. You even think "gawd did it!" explains stuff.



And with all your self proclaimed knowledge of Science, you ( the smart guy ) can no more prove how the universe was created than I can. 

Be strong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> And with all your self proclaimed knowledge of Science, you ( the smart guy ) can no more prove how the universe was created than I can.


That's right. I.E., not at all.

Unlike you, I don't pick up an iron age book of mythology, read it, then pretend to know. Based on the ramblings of ignorant, superstitious, iron age people who thought demons caused disease and women were subhuman property.

But you go ahead and do you.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But you go ahead and do you.


Thanks, I will.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Thanks, I will.


I mean that. It harms nobody for you to believe in mythology. When you will run into problems is when you try to make others play with your toys.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I mean that. It harms nobody for you to believe in mythology. When you will run into problems is when you try to make others play with your toys.



Thanks again.

Be strong.


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> Thanks again.
> 
> Be strong.


If you want to emptily last word....
You are welcome to do it for another 100 pages bumping up my OP/Headline.
It's like I hired a Troll farm for free.
`


----------



## james bond

It's not God of the Gaps, but atheism/evolution of the gaps.  That started when Darwin wrote:

Five principles of Darwin's theory of evolution

1.  A world of constant change.  When you look at a flock of birds at the park you're seeing a tiny snapshot in time.
2.  The common ancestor. If the world is in constant change, it has to have changed from something.
3.  Gradual change and species formation.
4.  Inheriting change across a species.
5.  Evolution by Natural Selection.

#5 is what caused atheism to become "science" and what most atheists know about Darwin's ToE.  #5 is evolution of the gaps as in evolution did it.  Creationists know God created natural selection.

The rest is not observable.

ETA:  Most evos, especially the OP, do not know about Darwin's ToE Five Principles.  He hasn't read Darwin's main two books since all he does is beotch about creationists.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Atheism isn't possible.  *How did spacetime start?  You don't know. * Thus, your atheist scientists stole singulairty from the creationists.  You and the thieving atheists lost already.



That's right
And you don't know either.
So you and many other religions attributed it to DIFFERENT gods.
So you don't know anything either, and you have NO extra-biblical/extra-babble evidence.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> That's right
> And you don't know either.
> So you and many other religions attributed it to DIFFERENT gods.
> So you don't know anything either, and you have NO extra-biblical/extra-babble evidence.
> 
> `


I know and proved it with KCA.  You keep conveniently ignoring the evidence because of your atheism.  The hard evidence of creation science becomes religion to you.  If one's religion isn't true, then what good is it?  That's why science backs up the Bible.  Oh what's the point?  You believe in things with no evidence and that which science doesn't back up.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> I know and proved it with KCA.  You keep conveniently ignoring the evidence because of your atheism.  The hard evidence of creation science becomes religion to you.  If one's religion isn't true, then what good is it?  That's why science backs up the Bible.  Oh what's the point?  You believe in things with no evidence and that which science doesn't back up.


You proved it was god.. AND Haysoos no less!!!
Hasn't anyone at least suggested you for the Nobel Prize?

How about you get an extra year in the Insane retreat with free cookies and extra restraints!

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You proved it was god.. AND Haysoos no less!!!
> Hasn't anyone at least suggested you for the Nobel Prize?
> 
> How about you get an extra year in the Insane retreat with free cookies and extra restraints!
> 
> `


I should get a comparable prize from the USMB S&T Forum.  The proof is in the pudding.  It also destroyed the atheist belief in an eternal universe.  Now, you've had to change to another lie of evolution just to keep the atheist religion alive, but evolution was destroyed  by Louis Pasteur and I with his swan neck experiment.  No abiogenesis, no evolution  It's why evolution has nothing observable..

Instead, what I get is pleasure in whipping you and the atheists here into submission and frustration.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> I should get a comparable prize from the USMB S&T Forum.  The proof is in the pudding.  It also destroyed the atheist belief in an eternal universe.  Now, you've had to change to another lie of evolution just to keep the atheist religion alive, but evolution was destroyed  by Louis Pasteur and I with his swan neck experiment.  No abiogenesis, no evolution  It's why evolution has nothing observable..
> 
> Instead, what I get is pleasure in whipping you and the atheists here into submission and frustration.


I'm now adjusting that last tongue-in-cheek Nobel Pwize idea for your last "pwooof" to what I was seriously talking about, your insanity/delusions.
Now you claim you've disproved evolution too!!
And yet no one is listening.
Must be just the 'atheist' crowd  on USMB.
Yeah, that's it Gomer!
You ******* Freak.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> I'm now adjusting that last tongue-in-cheek Nobel Pwize idea for your last "pwooof" to what I was seriously talking about, your insanity/delusions.
> Now you claim you've disproved evolution too!!
> And yet no one is listening.
> Must be just the 'atheist' crowd  on USMB.
> Yeah, that's it Gomer!
> You ******* Freak.
> `


You know I'm 100% positive and I positively destroyed evolution with the swan neck experiment.  Of course, you can continue to practice atheism as a religion haha.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *You know I'm 100% positive and I positively destroyed evolution with the swan neck experiment. * Of course, you can continue to practice atheism as a religion haha.


Yes, you've repealed Biology and replaced it with scripture Gomer!
You've done it again.
You've replaced reality with GodDidIt.

Now stop hogging the keyboard and give the other patients a turn.

`


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> Thanks again.
> 
> Be strong.


Whatever happened to Duke?
You knew he was vanishing after all those -0- content answers.,

`


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> Whatever happened to Duke?
> *You knew* he was vanishing after all those -0- content answers.,



Your knowledge failing you again eh?!?


----------



## Blackrook

You don't disprove God by arguing that the only way to prove he exists is "God of the gaps."

I believe in God because he is a real presence in my life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blackrook said:


> You don't disprove God by arguing that the only way to prove he exists is "God of the gaps."
> 
> I believe in God because he is a real presence in my life.


You don't disprove gods at all. You also can't disprove unicorns.


----------



## Grumblenuts

But at least unicorns explains all the holes in the ceiling.


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `


Been there, done that.



Clyde 154 said:


> joke?  Again........applied science is real science, anything based upon mental projections is nothing but "philosophy"
> "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." -- Romans 1:22
> *Why can no one explain the origins of the universe as based upon the natural laws of physics?  Why can no one reproduce life from non-living matter?  Apply science to these questions and answer them based upon that application and come back tell us how smart you are. *


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `


The New 'God of the Gaps' champ/chump.



			
				ClydeN said:
			
		

> *Perhaps you can sell your philosophy that the universe naturally created itself from NOTHING,*





			
				ClydeN said:
			
		

> or that fish morphed into Human Beings over billions of years.  As for Me...........I have been endowed with "Common Sense" and taught to
> 
> "TEST EVERYTHING and HOLD ONTO THAT WHICH IS GOOD and PROVEN TO BE TRUE."  (1 Thes. 5:21)



`


----------



## ding

It's sad that the OP is discussing religion in the S&T forum.  Socialists will use every available opportunity to subordinate religion.


----------



## abu afak

trevorjohnson32 said:


> why is there something rather then nothing?​Space has background temperature to it from having its own density when void of matter and energy. If nothing existed at all then the heat and density of space would have to expand infinitely fast, and even if that was possible the temperature and density of space could always be less. So though you can measure infinity by large and small you can't have an infinite negative temperature or density or 'nothing at all' because there could always be something less.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_


At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Grumblenuts

So an electromagnetic field is which then, spirit or material? Idiot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> It's sad that the OP is discussing religion in the S&T forum.  Socialists will use every available opportunity to subordinate religion.


What is even sadder is that this is still a problem with religious nutters in 2022. So it beomes a topic in a science section.

Time to put away the childish toys, nutters.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit


Great! First, define the terms. So there can be no confusion.

Material world: delineate it. What it is and what it is not. 

Spirit: same


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What is even sadder is that this is still a problem with religious nutters in 2022. So it beomes a topic in a science section.
> 
> Time to put away the childish toys, nutters.


What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Great! First, define the terms. So there can be no confusion.
> 
> Material world: delineate it. What it is and what it is not.
> 
> Spirit: same


Material:  corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.

Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.


----------



## ding




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


Oh, so you're a sheep. Got it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Material:  corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.
> 
> Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.


So,

Something

And

Nothing 

Got it.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh, so you're a sheep. Got it.


Not sure how you made that leap in logic, but if it helps you feel better to believe that, be my guest.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So,
> 
> Something
> 
> And
> 
> Nothing
> 
> Got it.


No.  Some thing and no thing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> No.  Some thing and no thing.


Nope. Sorry. Something and nothing.

If you want to rule those out, you will need to be more specific.
.

Hard, isn't it?

Yeah, it's tough when you have to give up your wiggle room and obfuscation.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nope. Sorry. Something and nothing.
> 
> If you want to rule those out, you will need to be more specific.
> .
> 
> Hard, isn't it?
> 
> Yeah, it's tough when you have to give up your wiggle room and obfuscation.


Not according to the definitions I posted earlier, dummy.

Material: corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.​​Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.​


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hard, isn't it?


Not really.  You aren't much of a challenge.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> No.  Some thing and no thing.


Nope. Sorry. Something and nothing.

If you want to rule those out, you will need to be more specific.
.

Hard, isn't it?

Yeah, it's tough when you have to give up your wie room and obfuscation.


ding said:


> Not according to the definitions I posted earlier, dummy.
> 
> Material: corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.​​Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.​


So the universe was created by the ghost of my pet rabbit.

Got it.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If you want to rule those out, you will need to be more specific.


I was more specific, dummy.

Material: corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.​​Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.​


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So the universe was created by the ghost of my pet rabbit.
> 
> Got it.


No.  You don't got it.

Going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak 

What ding is doing  here is trying to leave himself wiggle room and emergency exits.

So he can say "That's not what I meant", ad nauseum, when anyone confronts him with the nonsense and contradictions in his own rants.

I have watched him and hobelim  do this to each other for 20 pages straight. Excruciating and anti-intellectual.

We don't have this "luxury", when discussing scientific ideas, or when performing science. 

It's a sure way to spot a charlatan. It works outside of the realm of magical bullshit, too. 

Just ask people to well-defi e their terms. Or,to describe exactly try what evidence would convince ce them otherwise.
When they instantly fail at this -- as ding is always sure to do -- you have exposed your charlatan. You know you are wasting your time to continue

Try it. 100% success rate.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak
> 
> What ding is doing  here is trying to leave himself wiggle room and emergency exits.
> 
> So he can say "That's not what I meant", ad nauseum, when anyone confronts him with the nonsense and contradictions in his own rants.
> 
> I have watched him and hobelim  do this to each other for 20 pages straight. Excruciating and anti-intellectual.
> 
> We don't have this "luxury", when discussing scientific ideas, or when performing science.
> 
> It's a sure way to spot a charlatan. It works outside of the realm of magical bullshit, too.
> 
> Just ask people to well-defi e their terms. Or,to describe exactly try what evidence would convince ce them otherwise.
> When they instantly fail at this -- as ding is always sure to do -- you have exposed your charlatan. You know you are wasting your time to continue
> 
> Try it. 100% success rate.


And here I thought I was just kicking your ass.

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak
> 
> What ding is doing  here is trying to leave himself wiggle room and emergency exits.
> 
> So he can say "That's not what I meant", ad nauseum, when anyone confronts him with the nonsense and contradictions in his own rants.
> 
> I have watched him and hobelim  do this to each other for 20 pages straight. Excruciating and anti-intellectual.
> 
> We don't have this "luxury", when discussing scientific ideas, or when performing science.
> 
> It's a sure way to spot a charlatan. It works outside of the realm of magical bullshit, too.
> 
> Just ask people to well-defi e their terms. Or,to describe exactly try what evidence would convince ce them otherwise.
> When they instantly fail at this -- as ding is always sure to do -- you have exposed your charlatan. You know you are wasting your time to continue
> 
> Try it. 100% success rate.


Everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”


----------



## ding




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.


Shaman ding has spoken!

Reads like a randomly generated statement in a scifi computer game with out-of-date AI.


----------



## hobelim

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I have watched him and @hobelim do this to each other for 20 pages straight. Excruciating and anti-intellectual.




lol...you ain't seen nothing yet!  Prepare yourself to be excruciated further .

Ding insists God is edible because he says he "just believes" in what is written in scripture. lol..

I point out the historical fact that both OT and NT scripture was written by extremely intelligent and dedicated Jewish people to educate children in metaphors, allegories, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., which are now well known literary teaching techniques of every nation but at the time written was incomprehensible to their many superstitious illiterate knuckle dragging and violent enemies, (your ancestors), the teaching deliberately hidden in words of a figurative language above their grasp and remains above the grasp of many people as wise and intelligent as you pretend to be.

Now I know that you like to jump up and down screaming magical bullshit whenever I say  this and so I understand how excruciating it must be if that's all you have to say in response. Life itself can be excruciating to a pompous jackass. If you can't acknowledge the truth in what I said, something as obvious as anyone saying that the sky is blue, then you are the anti intellectual, professor.

Put that under a microscope, boil it in a beaker, and maybe you'll learn something. Maybe not.

Either way what you find excruciating I find hysterical. Your position amounts to claiming that the story of Pinocchio is  magical bullshit because every scientist knows that puppets can't talk.   

Whatever you profess to believe or don't believe the truth is, as it is written, when naughty boys stay on Pleasure Island for too long those donkey ears are there to stay for life. (Pinocchio 3:14)

I have spoken.

Can I get a hee haw?


----------



## ChemEngineer

hobelim said:


> lol...you ain't seen nothing yet!  Prepare yourself to be excruciated further .
> 
> Ding insists God is edible because he says he "just believes" in what is written in scripture. lol..
> 
> I point out the historical fact that both OT and NT scripture was written by extremely intelligent and dedicated Jewish people to educate children in metaphors, allegories, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., which are now well known literary teaching techniques of every nation but at the time written was incomprehensible to their many superstitious illiterate knuckle dragging and violent enemies, (your ancestors), the teaching deliberately hidden in words of a figurative language above their grasp and remains above the grasp of many people as wise and intelligent as you pretend to be.
> 
> Now I know that you like to jump up and down screaming magical bullshit whenever I say  this and so I understand how excruciating it must be if that's all you have to say in response. Life itself can be excruciating to a pompous jackass. If you can't acknowledge the truth in what I said, something as obvious as anyone saying that the sky is blue, then you are the anti intellectual, professor.
> 
> Put that under a microscope, boil it in a beaker, and maybe you'll learn something. Maybe not.
> 
> Either way what you find excruciating I find hysterical. Your position amounts to claiming that the story of Pinocchio is  magical bullshit because every scientist knows that puppets can't talk.
> 
> Whatever you profess to believe or don't believe the truth is, as it is written, when naughty boys stay on Pleasure Island for too long those donkey ears are there to stay for life. (Pinocchio 3:14)
> 
> I have spoken.
> 
> Can I get a hee haw?



I put Fort Unfun on ignore long ago for obvious reasons, friend.  You description of Scriptures is unlike anything I have read before, which makes it the more valuable.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hobelim said:


> Ding insists God is edible because he says he "just believes" in what is written in scripture.


Yes, pretty much every Christian sect holds this belief.


hobelim said:


> Your position amounts to claiming that the story of Pinocchio is magical bullshit because every scientist knows that puppets can't talk


Then you don't read very well. The tale of Pinnochio does purport itself to be true, nor do others purport it to be true.  Thus it is not a myth.


This is pretty basic stuff. I should not have to explain this to you. But you are rabid and are making silly mistakes.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shaman ding has spoken!
> 
> Reads like a randomly generated statement in a scifi computer game with out-of-date AI.


Again... Everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”


----------



## ding

hobelim said:


> lol...you ain't seen nothing yet!  Prepare yourself to be excruciated further .
> 
> Ding insists God is edible because he says he "just believes" in what is written in scripture. lol..
> 
> I point out the historical fact that both OT and NT scripture was written by extremely intelligent and dedicated Jewish people to educate children in metaphors, allegories, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., which are now well known literary teaching techniques of every nation but at the time written was incomprehensible to their many superstitious illiterate knuckle dragging and violent enemies, (your ancestors), the teaching deliberately hidden in words of a figurative language above their grasp and remains above the grasp of many people as wise and intelligent as you pretend to be.
> 
> Now I know that you like to jump up and down screaming magical bullshit whenever I say  this and so I understand how excruciating it must be if that's all you have to say in response. Life itself can be excruciating to a pompous jackass. If you can't acknowledge the truth in what I said, something as obvious as anyone saying that the sky is blue, then you are the anti intellectual, professor.
> 
> Put that under a microscope, boil it in a beaker, and maybe you'll learn something. Maybe not.
> 
> Either way what you find excruciating I find hysterical. Your position amounts to claiming that the story of Pinocchio is  magical bullshit because every scientist knows that puppets can't talk.
> 
> Whatever you profess to believe or don't believe the truth is, as it is written, when naughty boys stay on Pleasure Island for too long those donkey ears are there to stay for life. (Pinocchio 3:14)
> 
> I have spoken.
> 
> Can I get a hee haw?


Not sure how you could have missed Jesus' claim that he is the paschal lamb.  It's the point of the NT.


----------



## hobelim

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, pretty much every Christian sect holds this belief.
> 
> Then you don't read very well. The tale of Pinnochio does purport itself to be true, nor do others purport it to be true.  Thus it is not a myth.
> 
> 
> This is pretty basic stuff. I should not have to explain this to you. But you are rabid and are making silly mistakes.




Excuuuse me. Any story that starts with "In the beginning" just like "once upon a time" and then immediately introduces a talking serpent with despicable human attributes is a children's story just like pinocchio, not to mention the fact that the Hebrew word for serpent, Nachash, is both a noun meaning serpent, and an adjective meaning, brazen, shiny one, and/or one who practices divination, the magical arts, sorcery, what we now know is brainwashing or mind control,
(Its science man!), not magical bullshit, and even though the bible is filled with mythological beings and fantastical stories conveying hard learned lessons from the distant past it all alludes to actual reality, eternal truth.

In fact your inability to grasp this simple fact whatever Christians may claim and instead responding with inept attempts at derision makes you seem like a pathetic comic book villain Bwahahaha or any number of unclean beasts and birds described in great detail in scripture.

So whatever you are trying to do what is actually happening is that you are proving that the stories in the Bible do indeed convey truth. lol....

Well done!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hobelim said:


> Excuuuse me. Any story that starts with "In the beginning" just like "once upon a time" and then immediately introduces a talking serpent with despicable human attributes is a children's story just like pinocchio, not to mention the fact that the Hebrew word for serpent, Nachash, is both a noun meaning serpent, and an adjective meaning, brazen, shiny one, and/or one who practices divination, the magical arts, sorcery, what we now know is brainwashing or mind control,
> (Its science man!), not magical bullshit, and even though the bible is filled with mythological beings and fantastical stories conveying hard learned lessons from the distant past it all alludes to actual reality, eternal truth.
> 
> In fact your inability to grasp this simple fact whatever Christians may claim and instead responding with inept attempts at derision makes you seem like a pathetic comic book villain Bwahahaha or any number of unclean beasts and birds described in great detail in scripture.
> 
> So whatever you are trying to do what is actually happening is that you are proving that the stories in the Bible do indeed convey truth. lol....
> 
> Well done!


Nah, you're full of shit as always on this one.


Yes, the myth is purported as true. Yes, the authors purported it to be true.

Yes, doctrine says it is true. In every sect. 

Yes you would be taking every word literally, if not for having the benefit of secular , scientific enlightenment.

So you will just have  to peddle that horseshit to someone else. Sorry.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> * It's pretty hard for someone to argue that every effect did not have a cause.  *Just like it's hard to argue that the very basis of cause and effect is that everything happens for a reason.  It would be unscientific to not believe that every effect had a cause and happened for a reason.  You'd have to believe in magic to not believe that.  Is that what you believe in?  Magic?  Do you believe in magic?


Actually it's more logical to say "we don't know/know yet," just as we do for other versions of (your present) "God of the Gap' posts.
IOW, manufacturing causes (oft gods) for things we do not understand yet is Not logical and has failed invoking 10,000 other Ostensible 'causes.'
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Actually it's more logical to say "we don't know/know yet," just as we do for other versions of (your present) "God of the Gap' posts.
> IOW, manufacturing causes (oft gods) for things we do not understand yet is Not logical and has failed invoking 10,000 other Ostensible 'causes.'
> `


There has never been an effect that was uncaused in the history of the universe. Cause and effect is literally the basis for science. Only an imbecile would argue against it.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> There has never been an effect that was uncaused in the history of the universe. Cause and effect is literally the basis for science. Only an imbecile would argue against it.


And cause does not necessarily have a purpose or order or hardwiring.
And no one knows the cause of the Universe.. yet.
*You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.

`*


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> And cause does not necessarily have a purpose or order or hardwiring.
> And no one knows the cause of the Universe.. yet.
> *You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.
> 
> `*


Why are you carrying the exact same conversation in two threads?

So... like I said in the other thread....

We can move on to that once you stop making idiotic arguments that you don't live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. First you must acknowledge that you live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.

Or I will just keep beating you over the head with it. Fair enough?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Gods and dice need not apply.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Why are you carrying the exact same conversation in two threads?
> 
> So... like I said in the other thread....
> 
> We can move on to that once you stop making idiotic arguments that you don't live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. First you must acknowledge that you live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.
> 
> Or I will just keep beating you over the head with it. Fair enough?


Because you came into Two threads with the same bogus claims.

And you have no answer what this cause is, if any.
*You have baselessly declared and characterized it as purposeful, orderly, etc. (really Discredited ID) and Discredited 'God of the Gaps.'*
And fact is neither you nor anyone else knows.. yet.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Because you came into Two threads with the same bogus claims.
> 
> And you have no answer what this cause is, if any.
> *You have baselessly declared and characterized it as purposeful, orderly, etc. (really Discredited ID) and Discredited 'God of the Gaps.'*
> And fact is neither you nor anyone else knows.. yet.
> `


Are you seriously going to have the exact same conversation in three threads?

Like I said in the original thread...

I am only trying to establish if you believe in cause and effect and that cause and effect means that everything happens for a logical reasons. We can get into specifics once you acknowledge this. I'm not going to play your squeeze balloon game. I'm going to pin you down point by point.

The first point is that we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. Yes or no? I say yes. Science says yes. Only idiots say no. What do you say?


----------



## abu afak

*`*


ding said:


> Are you seriously going to have the exact same conversation in three threads?
> 
> Like I said in the original thread...
> 
> I am only trying to establish if you believe in cause and effect and that cause and effect means that everything happens for a logical reasons. We can get into specifics once you acknowledge this. I'm not going to play your squeeze balloon game. I'm going to pin you down point by point.
> 
> The first point is that we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. Yes or no? I say yes. Science says yes. Only idiots say no. What do you say?


As I said, I brought in this one because I recognized what you were doing.
The OP will spell it out more.

`


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `





watchingfromafar said:


> If I have upset you, please forgive me.
> 
> I believe you are and that is why I posted this topic here. I was hoping to get comments on the substance of my post.
> We started with a molten ball of rock and now we have billions of loving things. I am disputing evolution as the reason.
> -
> 
> BTW: when you look at these creatures consider the complexity of their design. Even a spider has hundreds of separate parts working together


See the OP
Asked and answered.
But you weren't Bright enough to look before posting.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> *`*
> 
> As I said, I brought in this one because I recognized what you were doing.
> The OP will spell it out more.
> 
> `


I'm glad you are arguing against cause and effect in three threads.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> No, again Moron.
> You have like a 12 IQ.
> Just that we don't always know the cause/know it yet and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.
> 
> By you 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
> They are not and were not as we know now.
> So we wait until we do know the cause.
> `


You are skipping steps.  Right now I am just trying to get you to acknowledge the principle of cause and effect.  Stop believing that things happen magically.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> No, again Moron.
> You have like a 12 IQ.
> *Just that we don't always know the cause/know it yet and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.
> 
> By you 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
> They are not and were not as we know now.
> So we wait until we do know the cause.*
> 
> `


I like it when you keep admitting that you don't know if cause and effect is real or not.  It's like you believe in magic.


----------



## abu afak

No, again Moron.
You have like a 12 IQ.
*Just that we don't always know the cause/know it yet and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.

By you 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
They are not and were not as we know now.
So we wait until we do know the cause.*

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> No, again Moron.
> You have like a 12 IQ.
> *Just that we don't always know the cause/know it yet and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.
> 
> By you 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
> They are not and were not as we know now.
> So we wait until we do know the cause.*
> 
> `


I'm not the one who created a thread in the science forum to discuss the existence of God, dummy.  You did.

And why do you keep repeating yourself?


----------



## ding

Everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”


----------



## Seymour Flops

It is true that attributing every gap in understanding and knowledge to a deity is a fallacy.

But that doesn't mean that pointing out gaps that actually exist is also a fallacy.

The worst thing for the pursuit of scientific knowledge is for that pursuit to become politicized.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> It is true that attributing every gap in understanding and knowledge to a deity is a fallacy.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that pointing out gaps that actually exist is also a fallacy.
> 
> The worst thing for the pursuit of scientific knowledge is for that pursuit to become politicized.


No matter what the gap is, the sin is to make up a diety for it instead of looking for a Real and tangible explanation.
that IS how science has progressed/we got all our knowledge.
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> No matter what the gap is, the sin is to make up a diety for it instead of looking for a Real and tangible explanation.
> that IS how science has progressed/we got all our knowledge.
> `


True, that is A sin.  Another sin is to pretend that the gap isn't there, or to attack anyone who points out the gap.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> True, that is A sin.  Another sin is to pretend that the gap isn't there, or to attack anyone who points out the gap.


There will always be gaps in knowledge, and evolution PREDICTS them in their branch of science, and fills them in regularly.
If it was creationism there would be no gaps just as is.
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> There will always be gaps in knowledge, and evolution PREDICTS them in their branch of science, and fills them in regularly.
> If it was creationism there would be no gaps just as is.
> `


That is interesting.

Can you link me to to some quotes from Darwinists acknowledging a gap and them to some later quotes filling in those gaps?

I only ask because what you say sounds like a Pollyanna view of Darwinism, based on wishful thinking.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> That is interesting.
> 
> Can you link me to to some quotes from Darwinists acknowledging a gap and them to some later quotes filling in those gaps?
> 
> I only ask because what you say sounds like a Pollyanna view of Darwinism, based on wishful thinking.


Why do you Double/triple space?
To add the illusion of volume/substance in your No response/NO fact posts.

I have posted this Numerous times in the last week. Once in Each of Your Duplicate "Evo/Predictability" threads, destroying your attempts with them.
Again from
15 Answers to Creationist nonsense
(YOUR nonsense)

"... For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one Should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is Indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology routinely makes Predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."

`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Why do you Double/triple space?
> To add the illusion of volume/substance in your No response/NO fact posts.
> 
> I have posted this Numerous times in the last week. Once in Each of Your Duplicate "Evo/Predictability" threads, destroying your attempts with them.
> Again from
> 15 Answers to Creationist nonsense
> (YOUR nonsense)
> 
> "... For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one Should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is Indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
> Evolutionary biology routinely makes Predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."
> 
> `


I'm not going to debate your cut and paste.



Because I know that you would only say, "Take it up with the author, then . . . "











That's not debate at all.


But since you like cut and paste quotes, can you link me to to some quotes from Darwinists acknowledging a gap and then to some later quotes filling in those gaps?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> I'm not going to debate your cut and paste.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know that you would only say, "Take it up with the author, then . . . "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not debate at all.


You can't debate me on topic with my words or anyone else's.
It's quite a short excerpt and easy to reply to if you have any substance but you do NOT.

Just


Quintuple spacing to distract from your grievous and Fraudulent inability.

`

`


----------



## Blues Man

An assumption that runs along with the god of the gaps argument is that we will one day be able to explain everything.

The fact is we won't.

Our brains may be incapable of the thought processes needed to understand the entire universe.

My dog will never understand prime numbers because her brain is incapable of that type of thought process.  There is no reason to assume our brains also have a limit to what we can comprehend.


----------



## ding

Punctuated equilibrium is based on long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes.  It's literally based upon the gaps which dominate the fossil record.


----------



## ding

Seymour Flops said:


> That is interesting.
> 
> Can you link me to to some quotes from Darwinists acknowledging a gap and them to some later quotes filling in those gaps?
> 
> I only ask because what you say sounds like a Pollyanna view of Darwinism, based on wishful thinking.


You might as well be speaking Martian.   He doesn't understand anything you are saying.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> You can't debate me on topic with my words or anyone else's.
> It's quite a short excerpt and easy to reply to if you have any substance but you do NOT.
> 
> Just
> 
> 
> Quintuple spacing to distract from your grievous and Fraudulent inability.
> 
> `
> 
> `


Ok, since it's a slow morning.

If you will positively state that you agree with everything in that excerpt, I will debate it.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Blues Man said:


> An assumption that runs along with the god of the gaps argument is that we will one day be able to explain everything.
> 
> The fact is we won't.
> 
> Our brains may be incapable of the thought processes needed to understand the entire universe.
> 
> My dog will never understand prime numbers because her brain is incapable of that type of thought process.  There is no reason to assume our brains also have a limit to what we can comprehend.


That's a good point for someone who truly uses the "god of the gaps" argument.  

I'm struggling to educate some of the posters on here who think that anyone who even mentions the gaps is guilty of the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

My point is only this:  So long as there are gaps in the knowledge, we have no business bullying people who state simply that there are gaps in the knowledge, and that we should examine that knowledge - including those gaps - with an open mind and critical thinking.


----------



## ding

Seymour Flops said:


> My point is only this: So long as there are gaps in the knowledge, we have no business bullying people who state simply that there are gaps in the knowledge, and that we should examine that knowledge - including those gaps - with an open mind and critical thinking.


Sounds reasonable to me.  That will never work here.


----------



## abu afak

Blues Man said:


> An assumption that runs along with the god of the gaps argument is that we will one day be able to explain everything.
> 
> The fact is we won't.
> 
> Our brains may be incapable of the thought processes needed to understand the entire universe.
> 
> My dog will never understand prime numbers because her brain is incapable of that type of thought process.  There is no reason to assume our brains also have a limit to what we can comprehend.


We're doing pretty well so far!
Thousands of gods now extinct due to natural explanations.
Of course, there will always be questions on new issues as well. Always 'whys'.
The lesson here of course is there is no reason (and it has continuously failed) to make up a 'god' as an 'answer.'
Humanity would be nowhere accepting scripture as the answer to everything.
(look how many still deny Evo)


PS: *the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 4/5 (and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' (nothing to shoot at in Env this AM, so he's here. He's GOT to have his hate/endless losses sated.)*
`


----------



## Blues Man

abu afak said:


> We're doing pretty well so far!
> Thousands of gods now extinct due to natural explanations.
> Of course, there will always be questions on new issues as well. Always 'whys'.
> The lesson here of course is there is no reason (and it has continuously failed) to make up a 'god' as an 'answer.'
> Humanity would be nowhere accepting scripture as the answer to everything.
> (look how many still deny Evo)
> 
> 
> PS: *the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his FOUR vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog.*
> `


It's important that we also recognize that we will most likely never know the answers we seek


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> We're doing pretty well so far!
> Thousands of gods now extinct due to natural explanations.
> Of course, there will always be questions on new issues as well. Always 'whys'.
> The lesson here of course is there is no reason (and it has continuously failed) to make up a 'god' as an 'answer.'
> Humanity would be nowhere accepting scripture as the answer to everything.
> (look how many still deny Evo)
> 
> 
> PS: *the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his FOUR vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog.*
> `


You guys aren't really interested in science.  If you were you would have more knowledge of science.


----------



## abu afak

Blues Man said:


> It's important that we also recognize that we will most likely never know the answers we seek


Depends on which answers.
History shows we will get answers but have yet more questions. Of course.
During the last 10,000 years we've probably lost 2 or 3 times that many "gods as explanations."




*PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat/already answered One-Line baits. Recently following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie,
Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32) (now 35, 40, 45) vengeful out of control/one-line/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies. Obsessed last-worder/post-coverer.*


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> PS: *the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat/already answered One-Line baits. Recently following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie,
> Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32, and counting) vengeful out of control/one-line/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.*


----------



## Blues Man

abu afak said:


> Depends on which answers.
> History shows we will get answers but have yet more questions. Of course.
> During the last 10,000 years we've probably lost 2 or 3 times that many "gods as explanations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat/already answered One-Line baits. Recently following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie,
> Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32) (now 35, 40, 45) vengeful out of control/one-line/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies. Obsessed last-worder/post-coverer.*


History shows no such thing


----------



## ding

I'm probably going to need more popcorn for this.


----------



## abu afak

Blues Man said:


> History shows no such thing


Fire, Lightning, Fertility, Aztecs, etc x10,000, all gone by natural explanation or by the fact their 'god' didn't [even] save them or their civilizations.
`


----------



## ding

All major religions are monotheistic.  Polytheism is dead.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I'm not the one who created a thread in the science forum to discuss the existence of God, dummy.  You did.
> 
> And why do you keep repeating yourself?


Obviously not the topic, really.
 Just your sissy strawman, because the topic steamrolled you.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Obviously not the topic, really.
> Just your sissy strawman, because the topic steamrolled you.


It goes to the credibility of the OP.  Creating a thread about God in the science section seems odd.  

How did the OP steamroll me exactly?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> It goes to the credibility of the OP.  Creating a thread about God in the science section seems odd.
> 
> How did the OP steamroll me exactly?


Good thing he didn't do that. Ding, sorry, your strawman dolly is yours and yours alone to play with.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Good thing he didn't do that. Ding, sorry, your strawman dolly is yours and yours alone to play with.


We are talking about abu afuk, right?  

So how did the OP steamroll me?


----------



## abu afak

> Seymour Flops said:
> That is interesting.
> 
> Can you link me to to some quotes from Darwinists acknowledging a gap and them to some later quotes filling in those gaps?
> 
> I only ask because what you say sounds like a Pollyanna view of Darwinism, based on wishful thinking.


Why do you Double/triple space?
To add the illusion of volume/substance in your No response/NO fact posts.

I have posted this Numerous times in the last week. Once in Each of Your Duplicate "Evo/Predictability" threads, destroying your attempts with them.
Again from
15 Answers to Creationist nonsense
(YOUR nonsense)

"... For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one Should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is Indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology routinely makes Predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:


> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
> _"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"_
> And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
> 
> If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
> The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
> 
> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*​​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​​One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
> 
> There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
> `





BackAgain said:


> The inference of a divine creator may be wrong but it is not a fallacy.



LOL
`


----------



## BackAgain

abu afak said:


> LOL
> `


🥸babu speaks.  Sort of.

Thankfully for babu, inaccuracy isn’t illegal.


----------



## abu afak

BackAgain said:


> 🥸babu speaks.  Sort of.
> 
> Thankfully for babu, inaccuracy isn’t illegal.


1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

*God of the gaps*

(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]

*The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...*


2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
*
*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
*Therefore the Cause must be supernatural. *

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows:* "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." *Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*
> 
> (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> *The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...*
> 
> 
> 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
> 
> The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
> 
> **There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
> *Therefore the Cause must be supernatural. *
> 
> One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows:* "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." *Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
> 
> God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]
> `


This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

Everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.


----------



## badger2

The term "gap" used in this thread is a very old concept, and it's not surprisiong that it attracts the stupidity of relgious believers: stupidity always gets the reality it deserves, and the believer will make sure that happens, because they are addicts to their notion of remaining unscathed by life. The gap for the believer equates to the same IQ level of hominds which is also the origins of religion's protection racket coercion:

'The evolutionary default is toward the integration of anthropomorphic promiscuity and sociographic prudery. In other words, human beings today are intuitively and naturally drawn into the biocultural gravitational field of the integrated tendencies in the lower left quadrant of the graph (Fig.1.1). WhY? In the environment of our early ancestors (Late Pleistocene Africa) the selective advantage went to hominids whose cognitive capabilities enabled them quickly to detect relative agents in the (natural [italics]]) environment, and whose groups were adequately protected from the dissolution that could result from too many defectors and cheaters in the (social [it.]) environment.

Prior to the pressures exerted by population expansion or by reduced access to ecological resources, hominid groups may well have been less prudish in their sociography. Whatever the unique conditions were that led some groups out of Africa, however, it seems clear that their survival was enhanced by the integration of theogonic forces.

The evolution of cognitive mechanisms like the Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device (HADD) would have helped them survive by increasing their success by avoiding predation and finding prey, protectors, and partners. However, it would have also made our ancestors prone to perceptual mistakes, such as interpreting a noise in the forest as a tiger when it was only the wind. 

When it comes to detecting potential potential agents in the environment It is bettter to be safe than sorry; better overly sensitive and often wrong than insensitive and eaten once. Despite the many false positives, natural selection would have rewarded this perrceptual strategy. The interpretation of ambiguous phenomena increasingly defaulted to "intentional force." If no physical tiger could be found, this default would have contributed to the likelihood of guessing "animal spirit" or some other invisible power like "ancestor ghost."

Such guesses would have been reinforced as other cognitive processes kicked in, such as the Theory of Mind Mechanism (ToMM) and intuitive dualism, further strengthening the tendency to postulate the existence of disembodied agents with mental and emotional states when confronted with ambiguous phenomena.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, pp. 11-12)

See www. for Alan M. Leslie, Core Mechanisms in Theory of Mind: '....one response to this challenge has been to suppose that we are born as "little scientists" who discover belief and desire through experimentation, observation, and theory-building.'

Agent Detection





						Agent detection - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Seymour Flops

So, it is true that we should not automatically assume God as the only explanation for the many gaping holes in naturalistic evolutionary theory.  But, if we are intellectually hones, we must recognize that the gaps are there.  We shouldn't say, "it must be God," when discussing those gaps, but we have to say, "it must be something."

Let us not forget that evolutionary theory is not in any way an experimental science.  Evolutionary theory consists entirely of hypotheses and suppositions, few of which can be tested. 

Evolutionary theorists have yet to come up with a plausible way that DNA could have formed without having been designed.   Since it is not experimental, almost any idea for how DNA formed would be immediately accepted by the popular science media, and impossible to falsify.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> So, it is true that we should not automatically assume God as the only explanation for the many gaping holes in naturalistic evolutionary theory.  *But, if we are intellectually hones, we must recognize that the gaps are there. * We shouldn't say, "it must be God," when discussing those gaps, but we have to say, "it must be something."


There's gaps in every science and has been forever.
God has usually been used and always failed on all on which we have a verdict. 0-fer-10,000.



Seymour Flops said:


> Let us not forget that *evolutionary theory is not in any way an experimental science.  Evolutionary theory consists entirely of hypotheses and suppositions, few of which can be tested.*


Wrong:

*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), *a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."* No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."*



Seymour Flops said:


> Evolutionary theorists have yet to come up with a plausible way that DNA could have formed without having been designed.   Since it is not experimental, almost any idea for how DNA formed would be immediately accepted by the popular science media, and impossible to falsify.


Before DNA there was RNA.
google ie 'RNA world'
ie


			The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf
		


`


----------



## ding

“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Charles Darwin


----------



## Rigby5

ding said:


> “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Charles Darwin



Incorrect.

We only have found fewer than 10 Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
Yet for them to exist at all, there had to be over half a million of them in existence, at any one time, and for them to continually exist for over at least 10 million years.
Allowing for at least a 50 year life span, that means there should be over 100 trillion Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
And yet we only have 10,
That means very few fossils survive, and we find very few of those even.

And that is with an obviously very successful Tyrannosaurs Rex.
With some much less successful species, like T Rex predecessors and descendants, that was a 10th in population, over a 10th the number of years, we should expect 1% of the fossils.
So what is 1% of 10?
That is 0.1, and that is about what we see and should expect for the predecessors and descendants after the successful run of Tyrannosaurus Rex.


----------



## ding

Rigby5 said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> We only have found fewer than 10 Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
> Yet for them to exist at all, there had to be over half a million of them in existence, at any one time, and for them to continually exist for over at least 10 million years.
> Allowing for at least a 50 year life span, that means there should be over 100 trillion Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
> And yet we only have 10,
> That means very few fossils survive, and we find very few of those even.
> 
> And that is with an obviously very successful Tyrannosaurs Rex.
> With some much less successful species, like T Rex predecessors and descendants, that was a 10th in population, over a 10th the number of years, we should expect 1% of the fossils.
> So what is 1% of 10?
> That is 0.1, and that is about what we see and should expect for the predecessors and descendants after the successful run of Tyrannosaurus Rex.


Even Darwin recognized it.  Everyone has recognized it but you.  

Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.









						Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Rigby5

ding said:


> Even Darwin recognized it.  Everyone has recognized it but you.
> 
> Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Wrong.
You simply did not read what punctuated equilibrium means.
It means that when changes first happen in a species, it is not likely to at first be very successful, so you should not expect a large population.
But eventually it may become very successful and then become a very large population.
But then any large population will attract predators, pathogens, etc., and eventually the large population will again drastically drop.
And obviously, when population are low, the odds are no one will find the few fossil remains there may be.
The fossil record is EXACTLY what Darwin and all anthropologists expect.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Rigby5 said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> We only have found fewer than 10 Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
> Yet for them to exist at all, there had to be over half a million of them in existence, at any one time, and for them to continually exist for over at least 10 million years.


Where did you get that formula?  I actually hope that you pulled it out of thin air.  I hate to think that some taxpayer funded paleontologist came up with that idea.


Rigby5 said:


> Allowing for at least a 50 year life span, that means there should be over 100 trillion Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
> And yet we only have 10,
> That means very few fossils survive, and we find very few of those even.


How do you know there was a 50 year life span for T-Rex?  How does life span affect fossilization after death?


Rigby5 said:


> And that is with an obviously very successful Tyrannosaurs Rex.


If we only have ten T-Rex fossils, how were they “very successful?”

So what is 1% of 10?


Rigby5 said:


> That is 0.1, and that is about what we see and should expect for the predecessors and descendants after the successful run of Tyrannosaur . . .


Supposition derived from made up facts.

You and the other natural evolution proponents would have more credibility if you said something like: 

“Ok, we don’t have all the answers.  We have only scratched the surface and there are many huge plot holes in our narrative.  But we have to keep seeking naturalistic explanations to avoid the laziness of attributing everything to God.”

If you said that, I would be perfectly willing to donate to your research.  But if you are going to lie and make up facts, I don’t want to pay for that.


----------



## ding

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> You simply did not read what punctuated equilibrium means.
> It means that when changes first happen in a species, it is not likely to at first be very successful, so you should not expect a large population.
> But eventually it may become very successful and then become a very large population.
> But then any large population will attract predators, pathogens, etc., and eventually the large population will again drastically drop.
> And obviously, when population are low, the odds are no one will find the few fossil remains there may be.
> The fossil record is EXACTLY what Darwin and all anthropologists expect.


Punctuated equilibrium is based upon genetic mutations.  

Darwin literally argued the fossil record was imperfect which is why the fossil record did not match his theory.  Darwin knew there was a gap in predicted versus observed even if you don't.  

Gould noted that Darwin’s argument that the fossil record is imperfect “persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly.”


----------



## Rigby5

Seymour Flops said:


> Where did you get that formula?  I actually hope that you pulled it out of thin air.  I hate to think that some taxpayer funded paleontologist came up with that idea.
> 
> How do you know there was a 50 year life span for T-Rex?  How does life span affect fossilization after death?
> 
> If we only have ten T-Rex fossils, how were the “very successful?”
> 
> So what is 1% of 10?
> 
> Supposition derived from made up facts.
> 
> You and the other natural evolution proponents would have more credibility if you said something like:
> 
> “Ok, we don’t have all the answers.  We have only scratched the surface and there are many huge plot holes in our narrative.  But we have to keep seeking naturalistic explanations to avoid the laziness of attributing everything to God.”
> 
> If you said that, I would be perfectly willing to donate to your research.  But if you are going to lie and make up facts, I don’t want to pay for that.



That is silly.
It is easy to gain a general feeling for time spans because Tyrannosaurus Rexs are so large, and so peculiar, with such small hands and big heads.
It would have taken tens of millions of years to evolve to the final form, and a long time to die out.
The 50 year life span was being generous, to estimate the number of fossils there should be.
Large animals tend to have longer life spans.
But your claims are all wrong.
It is easy to prove evolution.
All we have to do is look at tiny organisms with very short life spans, like a species of virus.
There we observe and verify evolution in less than a decade.


----------



## Rigby5

ding said:


> Punctuated equilibrium is based upon genetic mutations.
> 
> Darwin literally argued the fossil record was imperfect which is why the fossil record did not match his theory.  Darwin knew there was a gap in predicted versus observed even if you don't.
> 
> Gould noted that Darwin’s argument that the fossil record is imperfect “persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly.”



No, punctuated equilibrium is not based on genetic mutations.
Punctuated equilibrium is the fact that in times of species failure, there is a lot more inbreeding due to the small population size.
That inbreeding rapidly increases the speed of evolution through natural selection.
The mutations can not take place when the species is low in number, and had to already have been there a long time ago, but simply recessive or lacking in manifestation for some reason.
When inbreeding takes place, then recessives come out.

And the fossil record is EXACTLY what anyone should expect.
During periods of inbreeding from low populations, there would be little or no fossil record.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> It is easy to gain a general feeling for time spans because Tyrannosaurus Rexs are so large, and so peculiar, with such small hands and big heads.
> It would have taken tens of millions of years to evolve to the final form, and a long time to die out.
> The 50 year life span was being generous, to estimate the number of fossils there should be.


How does the length of the life span affect the number of fossils?  You appear to be making all this up.


Rigby5 said:


> Large animals tend to have longer life spans.
> But your claims are all wrong.
> It is easy to prove evolution.
> All we have to do is look at tiny organisms with very short life spans, like a species of virus.
> There we observe and verify evolution in less than a decade.


What new species have we seen evolve from which existing species, and how do we know that happened via natural selection?


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> So, it is true that we should not automatically assume God as the only explanation for the many gaping holes in naturalistic evolutionary theory.  But, if we are intellectually hones, we must recognize that the gaps are there.  We shouldn't say, "it must be God," when discussing those gaps, but we have to say, "it must be something."
> 
> Let us not forget that evolutionary theory is not in any way an experimental science.  Evolutionary theory consists entirely of hypotheses and suppositions, few of which can be tested.
> 
> Evolutionary theorists have yet to come up with a plausible way that DNA could have formed without having been designed.   Since it is not experimental, almost any idea for how DNA formed would be immediately accepted by the popular science media, and impossible to falsify.



It is not true that anyone should automatically assume one or more Gods as the only explanation for the many gaping holes in naturalistic evolutionary theory.  If we are to be intellectually honest, we can agree that the hyper-religious are the last people who are either intellectual or honest.

What is this 'naturalistic evolutionary theory' taught at your ID'iot creationer ministry? Most of know of the Theory of Evolution. It is among the best supported theories in science. Evolution by natural selection is supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology. it appears that being hyper-religious requires one to be a science denier.


Scientists already have a plausible theory for the formation of DNA. Had you taken biology courses in school, you would know that. I guess the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah is not real proactive with science. 

On the other hand, we have yet to see a plausible theory for any of the gods. 










						Why Darwin Was Right and Creationists Are Wrong
					

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Richard Dawkins. Free Press, 2009. 480 pp., illus. $30.00 (ISBN 9781416594789 cloth).




					academic.oup.com
				




Over the past three decades, biologists and then scientists more generally have become increasingly aware of the threat that creationism, in its many guises, poses not only to science but also to rationalism and evidence-based decisionmaking. The intention of “intelligent design” advocates, as revealed in the “wedge” document (www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf), was to replace evolution in science curricula and to recast the sciences generally in a theological framework (Forrest and Gross 2003). The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism is the front line in the defense of science


----------



## ding

Rigby5 said:


> No, punctuated equilibrium is not based on genetic mutations.
> Punctuated equilibrium is the fact that in times of species failure, there is a lot more inbreeding due to the small population size.
> That inbreeding rapidly increases the speed of evolution through natural selection.
> The mutations can not take place when the species is low in number, and had to already have been there a long time ago, but simply recessive or lacking in manifestation for some reason.
> When inbreeding takes place, then recessives come out.
> 
> And the fossil record is EXACTLY what anyone should expect.
> During periods of inbreeding from low populations, there would be little or no fossil record.


Punctuated equilibrium originated as a logical consequence of Ernst Mayr's concept of genetic revolutions by allopatric and especially peripatric speciation as applied to the fossil record. 









						Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




In punctuated equilibrium, *change comes in spurts*. There is a period of very little change, and then one or a few huge changes occur, *often through mutations in the genes of a few individuals. ... *









						Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium — New England Complex Systems Institute
					






					necsi.edu


----------



## Rigby5

Seymour Flops said:


> How does the length of the life span affect the number of fossils?  You appear to be making all this up.
> 
> What new species have we seen evolve from which existing species, and how do we know that happened via natural selection?



To figure out how many fossils one should expect, you take the duration of the species, multiply by the number of the population, and divide by the life span.
That is simple.
The reality is more complex because the population is not going to be constant, but start out small, grow large, and end up small again.

Since most evolution takes on the order of a million years or so, and we do not have history going back that far, the only way to actually see any evolution is going to be with very short lived organisms like viruses.  And I think ever one has heard that viruses mutate and evolve?

But natural selection is NOT the main part of evolution.
The main part if mutation.


----------



## Rigby5

ding said:


> In punctuated equilibrium, *change comes in spurts*. There is a period of very little change, and then one or a few huge changes occur, *often through mutations in the genes of a few individuals. ...*



That is not correctly worded.
They did not mean to imply that the mutations happened during or causing the decrease or increase in population.
The mutations are so slow, they always happened far earlier.
The whole point of punctuated equilibrium is that for a successful and large population, then mutations won't manifest.
They either will not be selected for by mates, or they will be recessive alleles.
Change can only rapidly take place when population are so low that inbreeding becomes common.
That brings out recessive mutations that have been around for a long time, but unable to manifest.
The mutations allow for the differences to exist in the genes, but you won't see them until there is inbreeding.


----------



## ding

Rigby5 said:


> That is not correctly worded.
> They did not mean to imply that the mutations happened during or causing the decrease or increase in population.
> The mutations are so slow, they always happened far earlier.
> The whole point of punctuated equilibrium is that for a successful and large population, then mutations won't manifest.
> They either will not be selected for by mates, or they will be recessive alleles.
> Change can only rapidly take place when population are so low that inbreeding becomes common.
> That brings out recessive mutations that have been around for a long time, but unable to manifest.
> The mutations allow for the differences to exist in the genes, but you won't see them until there is inbreeding.


You are arguing with the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI).  An independent academic research and educational institution. In addition NECSI has affiliates from MIT, Harvard and Brandeis.

And here's a paper on it.









						Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape
					

The gradual character of evolution is a key feature of the Darwinian worldview. However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium, whereby extended periods of evolutionary stasis are punctuated by rapid transitions...




					www.pnas.org


----------



## Seymour Flops

Rigby5 said:


> To figure out how many fossils one should expect, you take the duration of the species, multiply by the number of the population, and divide by the life span.
> That is simple.
> The reality is more complex because the population is not going to be constant, but start out small, grow large, and end up small again.


So why only ten T-Rex fossils?

If D(uration of the species) X P(population)/L(ife span) = E(expected fossils), then even if only a thousand T-rexes were on the Earth for one thousand years and they lived on average fifty years:


1,000 X 1,000/50 = 20,000​So your evidence is about 19,990 T-rex fossils short.



Rigby5 said:


> Since most evolution takes on the order of a million years or so, and we do not have history going back that far, the only way to actually see any evolution is going to be with very short lived organisms like viruses.  And I think ever one has heard that viruses mutate and evolve?


Well, they mutate.  I see no evidence that they "evolve."  They've been around for at least thirty million years and there they are:  still viruses.  Not very impressive "evolution."


Rigby5 said:


> But natural selection is NOT the main part of evolution.
> The main part if mutation.


So, is natural selection essential to your view of evolution?

If not, we really don't disagree much.  I still think you make up numbers and facts, but I don't doubt that species may have evolved.

Just not via natural selection.


----------



## Rigby5

ding said:


> You are arguing with the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI).  An independent academic research and educational institution. In addition NECSI has affiliates from MIT, Harvard and Brandeis.
> 
> And here's a paper on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape
> 
> 
> The gradual character of evolution is a key feature of the Darwinian worldview. However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium, whereby extended periods of evolutionary stasis are punctuated by rapid transitions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pnas.org



Wrong.
You are just misunderstanding.
Darwin assumed evolution was slow and little increments.
That is not the case.
Evolution stops with large populations, but accelerates incredibly when there are small populations that cause a lot of inbreeding.
And your link agrees with me, so I am not arguing with anyone.


----------



## Rigby5

Seymour Flops said:


> So why only ten T-Rex fossils?
> 
> If D(uration of the species) X P(population)/L(ife span) = E(expected fossils), then even if only a thousand T-rexes were on the Earth for one thousand years and they lived on average fifty years:
> 
> 
> 1,000 X 1,000/50 = 20,000​So your evidence is about 19,990 T-rex fossils short.
> 
> 
> Well, they mutate.  I see no evidence that they "evolve."  They've been around for at least thirty million years and there they are:  still viruses.  Not very impressive "evolution."
> 
> So, is natural selection essential to your view of evolution?
> 
> If not, we really don't disagree much.  I still think you make up numbers and facts, but I don't doubt that species may have evolved.
> 
> Just not via natural selection.



The point is that we are very bad at finding fossils.
We are not looking very hard, don't look in the right places, and natural processes may be destroying most of the fossils.

Viruses are doing fine, so there is no reason for them to become more complex. 
Evolution does not mean they have to become more complex.
Evolution is not about impressing anyone.
It is just about survival.

And yes, natual selection is essential.
Without natural selection, nothing would change.
Natural selection means the weak or least fit are destroyed by natural forces, such as predators, weather, disease, etc.
If nothing was destroyed and all propagated equally, then you would have homeostasis and not evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Rigby5 said:


> The point is that we are very bad at finding fossils.
> We are not looking very hard, don't look in the right places, and natural processes may be destroying most of the fossils.
> 
> Viruses are doing fine, so there is no reason for them to become more complex.
> Evolution does not mean they have to become more complex.
> Evolution is not about impressing anyone.
> It is just about survival.
> 
> And yes, natual selection is essential.
> Without natural selection, nothing would change.
> Natural selection means the weak or least fit are destroyed by natural forces, such as predators, weather, disease, etc.
> If nothing was destroyed and all propagated equally, then you would have homeostasis and not evolution.


This might suggest that as magical designers, the various gods are really incompetent at doing their jobs. That they designed disease, for example, suggests poor design or perhaps cruelty and vindictiveness.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> So why only ten T-Rex fossils?


You mean, why have we only FOUND ten. Use your big boy words.

(It's more than 10, btw)

And then maybe get on yer little Google horse and find the answer any child could find.

You're welcome.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You mean, why have we only FOUND ten.
> 
> Use your big boy words.
> 
> And then maybe get on yer little Google horse and find the answer any child could find.
> 
> You're welcome.


"Google the internet and you'll see that I'm right!"

Is bar none, the dumbest argument ever.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> "Google the internet and you'll see that I'm right!"
> 
> Is bar none, the dumbest argument ever.


It wasn't an argument. Apparently you don't know what that word means, either.

And i invited you to Google what the evidence shows us. Because you say very stupid things about these topics and clearly know less than nothing about any of this. You should definitely start with Google, like a 5 year old would.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It wasn't an argument. Apparently you don't know what that word means, either.
> 
> And i invited you to Google what the evidence shows us. Because you say very stupid things about these topics and clearly know less than nothing about any of this. You should definitely start with Google, like a 5 year old would.


It is your insults that are childish.

But, I understand why you would rather resort to them than defend your asinine position.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> It is your insults that are childish.
> 
> But, I understand why you would rather resort to them than defend your asinine position.


Haha, yes, keep pulling your taffy. The global scientific community can't defend their position, and you, the uneducated slob sharted out of a madrassa, has outsmarted them all.


----------



## ding

Like I said before, the further in time we get away from Darwin, the more willing evolutionary biologists will be to not ignore the gaping holes in Darwinism.  New evolutionary biologists are not beholding to Darwin and are unemotional when it comes to evaluating the short falls of Darwin's model.









						Stasis: Life Goes On but Evolution Does Not Happen | Evolution News
					

Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct.




					evolutionnews.org


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Like I said before, the further in time we get away from Darwin, the more willing evolutionary biologists will be to not ignore the gaping holes in Darwinism.  New evolutionary biologists are not beholding to Darwin and are unemotional when it comes to evaluating the short falls of Darwin's model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis: Life Goes On but Evolution Does Not Happen | Evolution News
> 
> 
> Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolutionnews.org


LOL
*'EvolutionNews' is a Crackpot Creationist/ID website run by the same people who run Discovery InstiSTOOP.*
(Center for Science and Culture)








						Center for Science and Culture - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Note the front page smear/slime headlines at 'evolutionnews-org.'
and they are are QUOTE MINING in your link.
See my sig for technique that is a hallmark of Kweationist 'debate.'
(""*The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters**."")*

Of course, my sig is by Stephen J Gould, who WITH Etheridge, developed 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' a TWEAK, not rebuttal to Darwin's evolution.
Gould is a strong advocate for Darwin/Evolution.

Every post you make reveals further what a backwards Witch Doctor/Fraud you are.
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

ding said:


> Like I said before, the further in time we get away from Darwin, the more willing evolutionary biologists will be to not ignore the gaping holes in Darwinism.  New evolutionary biologists are not beholding to Darwin and are unemotional when it comes to evaluating the short falls of Darwin's model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis: Life Goes On but Evolution Does Not Happen | Evolution News
> 
> 
> Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolutionnews.org


About time!


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> LOL
> *'EvolutionNews' is a Crackpot Creationist/ID website run by the same people who run Discovery InstiSTOOP.*
> (Center for Science and Culture)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Center for Science and Culture - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the front page smear/slime headlines at 'evolutionnews-org.'
> and they are are QUOTE MINING in your link.
> See my sig for technique that is a hallmark of Kweationist 'debate.'
> (""*The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters**."")*
> 
> Of course, my sig is by Stephen J Gould, who WITH Etheridge, developed 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' a TWEAK, not rebuttal to Darwin's evolution.
> Gould is a strong advocate for Darwin/Evolution.
> 
> Every post you make reveals further what a backwards Witch Doctor/Fraud you are.
> `


The fossil record speaks for itself.


----------



## ding

Seymour Flops said:


> About time!


I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen.  I'm arguing how it happened.


----------



## Seymour Flops

ding said:


> I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen.  I'm arguing how it happened.


Same here.


----------



## ding

__





						Neutral Theory: The Null Hypothesis of Molecular Evolution
					

In the decades since its introduction, the neutral theory of evolution has become central to the study of evolution at the molecular level, in part because it provides a way to make strong predictions that can be tested against actual data. The neutral theory holds that most variation at the...



					www.nature.com


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> *The fossil record speaks for itself.*


Exactly!
(now outed on your Religious Conspiracy website)

And that's what scientist rely on along with lots of other no-god-in-evidence Information across the sciences, and with the many new sciences since it was theorized.

No evidence of god/divine/voodoo/*ding-dung.*

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> About time!


Uh, apparently you two goobers don't realize that it's actually the scientists who discovered all of that.

So the idea that scientists are 'finally acknowledging their own life's work' is absurd in the utmost and ding  is embarrassing himself. And you are a nodding, sycophant who understands none of it.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Exactly!
> (now outed on your Religious Conspiracy website)
> 
> And that's what scientist rely on along with lots of other no-god-in-evidence Information across the sciences, and with the many new sciences since it was theorized.
> 
> No evidence of god/divine/voodoo/ding-dung.
> 
> `


It's not a coincidence the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uh, apparently you two goobers don't realize that it's actually the scientists who discovered all of that.
> 
> So the idea that scientists are 'finally acknowledging their own life's work' is absurd in the utmost and ding  is embarrassing himself. And you are a nodding, sycophant who understands none of it.


You seem upset.  My beliefs shouldn't make you this upset.  So there must be something more.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uh, apparently you two goobers don't realize that it's actually the scientists who discovered all of that.
> 
> So the idea that scientists are 'finally acknowledging their own life's work' is absurd in the utmost and ding  is embarrassing himself. And you are a nodding, sycophant who understands none of it.


I understand that scientist are acknowledging the shortfalls of Darwinian theory.  You're right in a way. Actual scientist never denied them. They are denied only by agendized science haters.


----------



## Seymour Flops

ding said:


> You seem upset.  My beliefs shouldn't make you this upset.  So there must be something more.


Ikr?

If someone came on and said that the sun is cold they would be ignored. But Darwimians know their beliefs are based on conjecture not science so feathers fly when you take them out of their comfort zone.


----------



## Hollie

abu afak said:


> Exactly!
> (now outed on your Religious Conspiracy website)
> 
> And that's what scientist rely on along with lots of other no-god-in-evidence Information across the sciences, and with the many new sciences since it was theorized.
> 
> No evidence of god/divine/voodoo/ding-dung.
> 
> `


The ID'iot creationers are so predictable. Invariably, their anti-science agenda is straight out of the Disco'tute, one or more of the creation ministries or Disco'tute controlled sites such as Evolution News.

The ID'iot creationers don't seem to understand that as soon as they use ID'iot creationer slogans such as “Darwinists” , "Darwinism'', etc.,(ID'iot creationer terms for modern biologists), they literally announce their allegiance to the religious extremists.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Ikr?
> 
> If someone came on and said that the sun is cold they would be ignored. But Darwimians know their beliefs are based on conjecture not science so feathers fly when you take them out of their comfort zone.


Yes, dear. Biologists, chemists, scientists in the fields of paleontology and geology are all a part of the vast conspiracy of evilutionist atheists who have manufactured billions of years of biologic history.

How do we know that? Well, because we have an intellectual cripple who refutes the entirety of science knowledge with ''nuh uh, supernatural designer gods did it''


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> The ID'iot creationers are so predictable. Invariably, their anti-science agenda is straight out of the Disco'tute, one or more of the creation ministries or Disco'tute controlled sites such as Evolution News.
> 
> The ID'iot creationers don't seem to understand that as soon as they use ID'iot creationer slogans such as “Darwinists” , "Darwinism'', etc.,(ID'iot creationer terms for modern biologists), they literally announce their allegiance to the religious extremists.


Good thing I'm not one of them, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> understand that scientist are acknowledging the shortfalls of Darwinian theory.


Unfortunately, you seem to have no idea what that actually means. 

HINT: you would still fail a 7th grade quiz on evolution


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unfortunately, you seem to have no idea what that actually means.
> 
> HINT: you would still fail a 7th grade quiz on evolution


It means what it says, unless you have evidence otherwise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> It means what it says, unless you have evidence otherwise.


Haha, as I was saying....

Thanks for the assist, as always.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> It means what it says, unless you have evidence otherwise.


And now we await Evidence for God/S, Creationism, ID, the designER/god. Any evidence at all.​Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia​
1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from behavior
9 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
10 See also
11 References
12 Sources
13 External links

*And now we await Evidence for GodS, Creationism, ID, the designER/god .. any evidence at all.

`*


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:
			
		

> A false premise is a false premise and truth is truth regardless of how much you disagree.  Simply provide the scientific experiment that proves that life evolved on earth from dead matter.  Until then.......you are promoting nothing but dogmatic philosophy that exists only in one place "BETWEEN YOUR EARS".
> 
> Did you not comprehend the paragraph you provided as a fact?  "...............MIGHT SIMPLY BE......."
> 
> Might: As defined by Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Used to denote a possibility.   Anything can be possible until its proven that its not.   This article is based upon one person's opinionated "imagination".   Science does not confirm truth and or facts via the use of "could have", "suggests", Might provide.....etc..,  Science is the quest for general truths and generally accepted facts as verified through the scientific method of Observable, Reproducible, Testable, evidences that always produces consistency regardless of the number of times the experiment is preformed.  Applied Science either verifies or falsifies.
> 
> FYI:   Every experiment that attempts to produce life from dead has historically been falsified via the scientific method of experimentation.  If not...............SHOW us this life that has been produced from non living matter in any historical experiment.  On the other hand Applied Science has never falsified the Creation Model presented in the Holy Bible.....in fact Louis Pasteur confirmed that life can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species, just as the bible states, "......each after its own kind......." -- Genesis 1:24
> 
> I am sure you will disagree when you have been proven to be a "LIAR".   I once knew a smart ass that once admitted they were wrong......but turns out they were not wrong.........they simply made a mistake.


Wikipedia God of the gaps - Wikipedia.

The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​​**There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.*​**Therefore the cause must be supernatural.*​​*One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." *Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​​God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​
​God of the gaps - RationalWiki

*God of the gaps*​(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: *there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller,* suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​​The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​
​also @BackAgain​​`​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

This is where your "miracle" nonsense belongs, jehanne1431


----------



## abu afak

[......]​Illustrating God-of-the-Gaps​*The familiar story of Isaac Newton and Pierre Simon de Laplace is a classic example of the God-of-the-gaps argument.* Newton devised a mathematical equation for the force of gravity that he used to explain and predict the motions of planets with outstanding accuracy. With pencil and paper, the orbit of the planets around the sun could be calculated with great precision. But planets also have gravitational interactions with each other, not just with the sun. For example, when the Earth passes Mars in its orbit around the sun, there is a small but significant gravitational interaction between Mars and Earth. Because these tiny interplanetary interactions occur often — several times per year in many cases — Newton suspected that these gravitational perturbations would accumulate and slowly disrupt the magnificent order of the solar system. To counteract these and other disruptive forces, Newton suggested that God must necessarily intervene occasionally to tune up the solar system and restore the order. ...
[......]
In both of these examples — one related to the ongoing motion of the planets and the other related to the origin of the motions — Newton is employing textbook God-of-the-gaps reasoning. Scientific theories are proposed to explain as much as possible, and then God is brought in to cover any remaining unexplained gaps in the explanation.

*We now know that Newton was wrong on both counts.* The gravitational perturbations that planets experience are largely balanced to average out to near zero over time. The net result is that the planetary motions are extremely stable; they do not deteriorate over time. And it was a straightforward application of Newton’s theory that revealed this. Newton simply had not done all the calculations to see if his intuition was right. The same was true for the orderly motion of the planets. Newton had no concept of how solar systems could form on their own or what the planetary motions would be like in naturally forming systems. Astronomy simply had not developed to this point. In the decades after Newton, astronomers discovered that solar systems form naturally from large clouds of rotating matter.....
[......]









						Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for God? - Common Question - BioLogos
					

The God of the Bible is much more than a god of the gaps. God is always at work in the natural world, in the gaps as well as the areas that science can explain.




					biologos.org
				




`

`


----------



## abu afak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unfortunately, you seem to have no idea what that actually means.
> 
> HINT: you would still fail a 7th grade quiz on evolution


Flops and ding are clueless.
`


----------

