If Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Creationists believe in "evolution" too. We just don't believe the crazy version that you do. But there can be no evolution without something to evolve. Where did this first LIFE come from in your world-view?

Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things. Or if you like, you could believe God when he says that nature produced the first living things as He intended.

Doesn't matter to evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about the origin of life.

 

[6days]

As suspected, he has no idea.

Re your dishonesty? That has been proven.


Or, re your fallacy of equivocation with the word evolution?


If by the word 'evolution' you are referrng to emperical science, we have no problem. After all it was a creationist who identified processes such as natural selection before Darwin did. But if by the word 'evolution' referring to observational science AND your unobservable beliefs about the past, then it is a logical fallacy... the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[CherubRam]

Creationists believe in "evolution" too. We just don't believe the crazy version that you do. But there can be no evolution without something to evolve. Where did this first LIFE come from in your world-view?

Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Just for the record, what do scientists mean by "evolution" in biology?

(6days dodges the question)

Barbarian chuckles:
As suspected, he has no idea.

If by the word 'evolution' you are referrng to emperical science,

Just man up and honestly answer the question. Stop equivocating and answer it.

Or admit you have no idea.

Do you think you're fooling anyone?

I'll repeat:
Just for the record, what do scientists mean by "evolution" in biology?

You know, you could go look it up.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, I'm not the one fearful my invisible friend will punish me for not "believing in him".

You will be when you stand before Him in judgement.

Oh, by the way, Santa is very disappointed in you. You only have three weeks to get your act together... or else.

Oh boy... more childish banter.

When you understand why you're not afraid of Santa Claus, you will understand why I'm not afraid of your invisible friend.

Sent from my SM-G930V using TOL mobile app

 

[Silent Hunter]

Are you saying you've never used goddidit to support any argument and it can't be shown you did? Seriously?!

What I said was "Post a quote in context and we can see."...

Context? In what context does goddidit NOT mean goddidit?

Otherwise you are just making strawmen arguments.

As has been shown prior, goddidit is not and never has been a straw man.

(And, then we can look to see if you have ever used evolutiondidit to support any argument).

Evolution is a natural and observed process (something you admit), goddidit is not.

Context is important...right?

When it comes to creationists declaring, "Goddidit!"? No, it's not.

 

[Silent Hunter]

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.

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.

You can further your education here, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

The "god of the gaps" fallacy is using gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence for the existence of God.

Not true and if you had ACTUALLY READ the definition and the link provided instead of inserting your own strawman you wouldn't be in need of being reminded how you continue to be misinformed.

"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..."

It doesn't made your chosen personal idea of deity true, ("evidence for the existence of God"), it simply inserts a placeholder... just in case.

See also: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy

And there are those who do this very thing; however, having read through this thread completely, that is not being done in this thread. Therefore, when you accuse anyone in this thread of using the "god of the gaps" fallacy you are attacking a straw-man.

And now you know, or should know, your straw man here is not true.

I didn't know "I want a cup of tea" will cause water to boil.

It most certainly does when it causes me to decide to fill the pot with water and use thermodynamics to boil it for my tea...

Equivocate much? You are confusing "want" with "why/how". Thermodynamics is the reason water boils not the desire for it to happen.

Perhaps you can quantify the amount of "I wanted a cup of tea" necessary to boil water, it sure will help save on my energy bill.

What exactly was the logic for saying this? That you would even say this proves my point about thinking that why/how (in this case quantification) is the only valid answer to why.

... and now you know better, see above.

There is a huge difference between the Big Bang (a naturalistic theory of origin) and goddidit. That you don't understand the difference is a testament to your lack of critical thinking skills. That no matter how clearly I might explain it you will never comprehend it is testament to the thoroughness of how well you have been brain-washed by christian fundamentalism.

Actually, I am more than aware of the differences, apparently more than you since you call the Big Bang theory a "naturalistic theory of origin." The Big Bang theory actually says nothing at all about the origin of the universe, I put it that way because that is what most people think when you say Big Bang theory (and we all know that what the majority thinks can't be wrong);

The BBT isn't thought of by the majority of humanity as AN EXPLANATION of the origin of the universe as it presently exists? Seriously??

... however, that wasn't the point. The point is it has to be believed, because, it too, has no proof: but, I should have expected you to create another straw-man to try to prove wrong...

Of course the BBT has no "proof", no scientific theory does, however, it does explain the EVIDENCE and that is all it does. If you have a better explanation not involving "goddidit" I'm sure the Nobel committee will be extremely interested.

I especially like how you accuse me of creating straw men (which I haven't) while seeing no problem inserting your own.

And do not think I missed the Ad Hominem attack you tried to cleverly switch into.

Which part of "your lack of critical thinking skills" and/or "brain-washed by christian fundamentalism" isn't true? So far you've shown my evaluation of both to be accurate.

Goddidit is an argument from ignorance.

Only when it uses the gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence for the proof of the existence of God;

... and which you continue to fail to understand isn't true.

... which, as I have already stated, is not taking place in this thread.

Perhap, perhaps not. I don't care since it has no bearing on OUR discussion. (This appears to be red herring on your part in an attempt at diversion.)

What is being discussed is not a lack in scientific knowledge, it is the interpretation of scientific knowledge that is being brought into question: right now specifically the timeframe in which speciation has taken place, can take place, and is taking place.

... and your interpretation isn't goddidit? You're kidding, right?

That you don't accept or undrstand a naturalistic explanation doesn't make goddidit the conclusion by default.

You are completely correct, but nobody in this thread has suggested that it does. You are just asserting that is what is taking place.

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't your position goddidit? If not, explain why not.

I see you are continuing to confuse "straw man" with "goddidit".

I do not believe that I am the one that is confused here...

That you don't understand the difference is a testament to your lack of critical thinking skills. That no matter how clearly I might explain it you will never comprehend it is testament to the thoroughness of how well you have been brain-washed by christian fundamentalism.

 

[Right Divider]

Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things. Or if you like, you could believe God when he says that nature produced the first living things as He intended.

So you're a Darwinist? Yes, God created KINDS which "evolve" in the sense that they change within their genetic limitations. Life is not a never ending mosaic of infinite change.

Doesn't matter to evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about the origin of life.

I guess you didn't know that many evolutionist master-minds of the past are atheists and claim that live arose from non-life by "natural processes".

You morph evolution into whatever you want much like they do.

 

[Right Divider]

When you understand why you're not afraid of Santa Claus, you will understand why I'm not afraid of your invisible friend.

Silent Hunter just rambles on and impresses himself very much.

 

[6days]

When you understand why you're not afraid of Santa Claus, you will understand why I'm not afraid of your invisible friend.

Atheists are not afraid of Santa Claus because they know he doesn't exist. That also explains why they don't go to conferences...publish books... and discuss arguments against the existence of Santa Claus. However.....

 

[6days]

When it comes to creationists declaring, "Goddidit!"? No, it's not.

Without backing up your claims Mr Hunter, you are just creating more strawmen arguments.

If you have an example then we can see the context if it was discussing theology...if evidence was presented etc. (And then we can examine evolutiondidit claims to compare).

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things. Or if you like, you could believe God when he says that nature produced the first living things as He intended.

So you're a Darwinist?

Just for the record, so we know what you're asking, tell us what the four points of Darwninism are.

Yes, God created KINDS which "evolve" in the sense that they change without their genetic limitations.

Let's test your non-scriptural belief, then. Give us a "kind" and tell us precisely what the "genetic limitations" are, with your evidence that no further variation is possible for that species.

Life is not a never ending mosaic of infinite change.

We'll know that, when we see your evidence for "genetic limitations." Show us what you've got beyond your non-Biblical imagination.

Barbarian observes:
Doesn't matter to evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about the origin of life.

I guess you didn't know that many evolutionist master-minds of the past are atheists

Many of them are Christians and Jews, and Muslims and so on. I guess you didn't know that. But your obfuscation attempt aside, show us that the origin of life is part of Darwin's theory.

and claim that live arose from non-life by "natural processes".

They claim that electricity is a fact, too. So you're telling us that electricity is part of Darwinian theory? C'mon. You aren't bright enough to pull off a trick like this. You morph evolution into whatever you want like so many creastionists do.

Again, just so we know, tell us the four points of Darwinian theory, and we'll see if you know what you're talking about.

 

[Silent Hunter]

When it comes to creationists declaring, "Goddidit!"? No, it's not.

Without backing up your claims Mr Hunter, you are just creating more strawmen arguments.

Are you saying you have never invoked goddidit as an "explanation" of what you claim is evidence of your concept of the divine's influence? Yes or no?

If you have an example then we can see the context if it was discussing theology...if evidence was presented etc.

6days, you know as well as I do this forum is filled to the brim with your claims of goddidit. Are you denying this obvious fact?

In what universe/context does goddidit NOT mean goddidit? Quit stalling.

(And then we can examine evolutiondidit claims to compare).

No, I don't think "we" will get that far. You are already caught in a lie, don't make it worse for yourself.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Atheists are not afraid of Santa Claus because they know he doesn't exist. That also explains why they don't go to conferences...publish books... and discuss arguments against the existence of Santa Claus. However.....

Similarly, creationists don't go to conferences,.publish books and discuss arguments against evolution... oh, wait, maybe they do.

 

[2003cobra]

great message that mentions evolution and the big bang

great message that mentions evolution and the big bang

http://northpoint.live/messages

I saw it today and highly recommend it.

If you have time, let me know what you think of Welcome to Wonderland.

 

[6days]

Are you saying you have never invoked goddidit as an "explanation" of what you claim is evidence of your concept of the divine's influence? Yes or no?

What I said was "If you have an example then we can see the context if it was discussing theology...if evidence was presented etc."

Then... once you have that, maybe we can compare it to evolutiondidit claims.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Are you saying you have never invoked goddidit as an "explanation" of what you claim is evidence of your concept of the divine's influence? Yes or no?

What I said was "If you have an example then we can see the context if it was discussing theology...if evidence was presented etc."

6days, you know as well as I do this forum is filled to the brim with your claims of goddidit. Are you denying this obvious fact?

In what universe/context does goddidit NOT mean goddidit? Quit stalling.

Then... once you have that, maybe we can compare it to evolutiondidit claims.

Why, so you can change the subject in an attempt to deflect attention away from your obvious lie? :nono:

 

[The Barbarian]

http://northpoint.live/messages

I saw it today and highly recommend it.

If you have time, let me know what you think of Welcome to Wonderland.

I think it's an error to try to use postmodernist arguments to support God. The idea that reality is what we make of it, essentially denies a transcendent reality.

Which is what God is.

 

[The Barbarian]

What I said was "If you have an example then we can see the context if it was discussing theology...if evidence was presented etc."

Then... once you have that, maybe we can compare it to evolutiondidit claims.

Most recently, we showed that the abundance of transitional forms where evolutionary theory predicted them (attested to by your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise in Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms) without any such forms were they aren't predicted.

As Wise says, this is strong evidence for evolution as Darwin predicted it to be.

Notice also, that not one YE creationist could come up with two groups lacking known transitional forms, which is also very good evidence for evolution.

There's a lot more, of course. Would you like to see more?

 

[Hawkins]

I don't think so. For example, forensics and fire investigations clearly show that we can.

That's only for recent occurrence with a motive. It doesn't apply to general cases.

Can you present evidence of what you did yesterday, the day before, the month before? You can't, nor can the 70 billion humans on earth. It means if we all do 2 things with 2 speeches a day, we have 70 billion x 2 x 365 x 10 events which are completely unsupported by evidence in the past 10 years.

Evidence is a delusion with an agenda behind.

======
The so-called evidence is a delusion based on which the twisted atheistic world view is built. Humans don't need evidence to reach a truth, it's like 99% of the situations how 99% humans reach a truth but without any evidence. Evidence is a delusion.

Humans are basically creatures of the present, we are blocked from accessing the past and we are blocked from accessing the future. We (especially the atheists) are trained and educated to believe otherwise.

What evidence do you have for what you yourself just did as recent as yesterday? You don't have, nor do the 7 billion humans on earth. The all 7 billion humans on earth don't have the evidence of their own deeds and speeches yesterday, the day before yesterday, a month ago, a year ago. That's how humans are blocked from reaching the past. We can't rely on evidence to get to the past simply because virtually, as a big picture, we have none!

So how will I be able to know what you did just yesterday? The more fundamental way for humans to get to the past is by putting faith in credible accounts of witnessing. If a credible eye-witness has written about what you did, and for us to believe with faith, then we can know what you did. That could possibly the only way we can reach your past and that's how this reality works. Evidence is an exaggerated term, or rather a delusion for you to think that it's crucial for humans to reach a truth, while it's not.

That's how the truth of past can be reached, under the big picture that the past is basically blocked from human access. Now how about science. Science basically works the same way. You don't need any evidence before you know for a fact that black holes exist, nor do 99% out of 7 billion humans. The point is why so. Why that out of the 100% humans who know for a fact that black holes exist but without any evidence ever presented to them? The answer is, humans don't rely on evidence to reach a truth. They can't.

The most fundamental way for humans to reach a truth of any kind is by putting faith in a "middle man" as the "eye witness". In the case of black holes, we rely on putting faith in the "middle man/eye witness" which is our scientists to get to its truth. What we choose to trust is the reliability and credibility of the scientists instead of evidence. That's the way how we reach what could possibly happen in the past, as well as how we get to a scientific truth.

Now how about the future? How can we approach a truth could possibly happen in the future. By using the atheistic world view then we can't. Because the atheistic world view demands evidence, it sound as if it's evidence which leads a truth in the past or in science thus they demand the same for the future. Their world view however is based on the delusion of the availability of evidence. Satan's trick here is to try to persuade you through the atheistic world view that humans need to rely on evidence to reach a truth. By using this tactics it is thus impossible for humans to reach the future at all, directly or indirectly.

Satan cast a delusion for atheists to believe mistakenly that humans need evidence to reach a truth. Since there won't be any evidence for the future (you may still find some for the past, you have none for the future), thus it means that you don't need to believe anything said about the future. Satan is trying to deny the more common way of how humans can reach a truth even in the future, though being blocked from accessing it directly.

As mentioned above, humans basically rely on witnessing to reach a truth in the past and in science. In the same manner, we can reach the future. This is the only way humans can possibly reach the future without direct access. We can reach by putting faith in the "middle man". The "middle man" in this case is the direct eye-witnesses of God. God knows the future and He conveys the truth to His direct eye-witnesses and for the rest of humans to put faith in them as the "middle man" to reach such a truth.

This is the only way how the incapable humans, who have no direct access to either the past or the future, can possibly get to a truth in the future, which Satan is trying hard to deny through atheism.