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

[Hollie]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

www.talkorigins.org

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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."

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Taz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

All species evolved differently. Now you know.

 

[K9Buck]

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.