Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

How so? An inability to do advanced math by a student does not refute advanced math. It is merely a rather difficult problem.

If it ever gets resolved, let's talk. Speculation/wishful thinking is meaningless.

Sorry, you did not find any evidence against it and you do not understand the concept of evidence since there is clear evidence for it.

Wishful thinking, you’re asking me to prove a negative. The fact is none of the numerous attempts led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution. See # 1850 & #2484.

No, it is not. It only means that the idea failed to meet the burden of proof. By your standards you just refuted your God since there is no reliable evidence for a God. Think about it.

So now we have established that you do not understand the concepts of evidence or the burden of proof.

Nonsense, the validity of your premise has nothing to do with mine.

You made a claim that abiogenesis is evidenced, demonstrate it.

Nonexistent is a bit extreme since it is a well supported hypothesis. It is only not a theory because there are still some important unanswered problems.

Some!!! See the article.

You just contradicted yourself and admitted to believing in magic.

Again, if magic is an effect without a cause, then there is no such thing as magic.

The cause must exist even if the nature of the cause is not known.

 

[rational experiences]

A man's human man consciousness human cannot be argued against.

Legal law conditions state the entity to argue upon has to exist to be legally stated.

Therefore there is no theory legally.

As humans impose what is a law in self only humans presence. A legal standard.

If you claim I believe it is not legal.

Evidence is you are a human. You are a living human. Evidence exact.

The argument bible. Factually was by humans who argued only against humans as theists with machines who applied reactions.

Humans today tried to infer evolution was the argument versus spiritual entity creation.

It wasn't.

Evolution proved a healthy type of biology lives and exists with the same healthy type of same biology in the same now position.

Proving a healthy type bio living as two in every species was mutated in laws whilst living side by side with its healthy own species.

Was why it had been human researched to prove that humans caused human mutations via technology. For changing bio heavens body.

Fallout sporadic. Phenomena attacks real sporadic the unlucky victim a victim.

As legal is for humans safety now a baby to old age. Argued for by humans intelligent enough to argue by humans living evidence.

If you used the dead human as evidence it only proved a mutated human to say was caused in the ancient past also.

Humans argue for life's survival now in legal stance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it ever gets resolved, let's talk. Speculation/wishful thinking is meaningless.

Don't accuse others of your sins. Abiogenesis is not speculaion.

Wishful thinking, you’re asking me to prove a negative. The fact is none of the numerous attempts led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution. See # 1850 & #2484.

Nope. Once again you do not understand the concept of evidence. You are in no position to judge what evidence is as a result. And yes, so far they have not got that answer. That is what the article says. It does not say or even imply that they will not find it. And no, if you want someone to "see" something quote and link it. Do not demand that others do your homework for you.

Nonsense, the validity of your premise has nothing to do with mine.

You made a claim that abiogenesis is evidenced, demonstrate it.

BS, it is the same bad logic. I used the same failed logic that you did and you immediately saw that when I did it it was bad logic, why isn't it bad logic when you do the exact same thng.

And sorry, but until you take the time to learn what is and what is not evidence you do not get to demand evidence. It would be worthless for me to give you any. Right now you can deny evidence without lying because you do not understand the concept,. If you learn what qualifies as evidence to deny it you would have to refute it. You cannot simply say that it is not evidence without openly lying. Are you bold enough to learn?

Some!!! See the article.

Yes. I saw the article. I understood the article. You read it with a biased perspective. Here is a simple question for you, what are some of the problems of abiogenesis that have been answered?

Again, if magic is an effect without a cause, then there is no such thing as magic.

That is not the definition of magic.

The cause must exist even if the nature of the cause is not known.

Maybe. There actually are uncaused events that do occur.

 

[LIIA]

How do you think that those are "evidence"? You do not understand the concept.

Nonsense, you always miss the concept. Life is not merely configurations of physical matter. There are non-physical aspects of life as evidenced by the NDE studies. Non-living physical matter cannot give rise to the non-physical consciousness /self-awareness.

NDEs provided evidence that our consciousness, with the continuous experience of self, does not necessarily coincide with the functioning of our brain. The evidence showed that enhanced/non-local consciousness, with unaltered self-identity, could be experienced independently from the lifeless physical body.

The NDE studies provided evidence that our consciousness is not physical and can persist beyond the physical body. See # 2625

I really do not want to get into NDE's. but trust me, there does not appear to be anything special about them.

Why should I trust your wishful thinking and meaningless claims?

And once again, when someone has to go so far afield from the topic at hand it is an admission that you lost the debate. The subject is evolution. Even if your claim about NDE"s were true it would not refute evolution at all.

Again, you missed the context. NDEs confirmed the existence of non-physical aspects of life; nonliving physical matter cannot give rise to the non-physical aspects of life, which adds another challenge to Abiogenesis that already failed to explain life before the NDE studies.

Life is not merely configurations of physical matter. Abiogenesis is false, Evolution is not possible

It is once again an argument that can be refuted by a "So what?"

So, life has non-physical aspects that are not explainable through interactions of nonliving matter.

You appear to be conflating evolution with atheism. That is a huge error on your part. Evolution is not out there to prove that God does not exist. It only proves that some of your beliefs about him are wrong. And not even the important parts of your beliefs. Why oppose it so vigorously? It is almost as if you know that your faith is wrong.

No, many uninformed are under the impression that evolution explains life. It doesn’t. it's only an attempt to explain the diversity of life. Abiogenesis was intended to explain the first life through interactions of nonliving matter (so evolution would be possible) but it never did (and will never do), hence the whole thing collapses. Abiogenesis failed to be a scientific theory, without Abiogenesis, evolution is not possible.

 

[LIIA]

Maybe. There actually are uncaused events that do occur.

You understand that without causality as a fundamental principle, the entire scientific method collapses, even our argument now would be meaningless. Except for the first cause, every entity is caused even if the cause is not known.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense, you always miss the concept. Life is not merely configurations of physical matter. There are non-physical aspects of life as evidenced by the NDE studies. Non-living physical matter cannot give rise to the non-physical consciousness /self-awareness.

NDEs provided evidence that our consciousness, with the continuous experience of self, does not necessarily coincide with the functioning of our brain. The evidence showed that enhanced/non-local consciousness, with unaltered self-identity, could be experienced independently from the lifeless physical body.

The NDE studies provided evidence that our consciousness is not physical and can persist beyond the physical body. See # 2625

You are conflating the claim with evidence. The studies only showed that NDE's occurred. It was a very poor one since it did not say anything about the cause. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Why should I trust your wishful thinking and meaningless claims?

Oh my, more projection. You are describing yourself. No, you should follow the evidence, but once again you do not understand the concept..

Again, you missed the context. NDEs confirmed the existence of non-physical aspects of life; nonliving physical matter cannot give rise to the non-physical aspects of life, which adds another challenge to Abiogenesis that already failed to explain life before the NDE studies.

Life is not merely configurations of physical matter. Abiogenesis is false, Evolution is not possible

No, you merely misunderstood the studies. They only say that NDE's occurred. No evidence for the supernatural. Are you already forgetting that you admitted that you have no evidence for our beliefs when I asked you a reasonable question and ducked it? In a debate that is the same as admitting that you are wrong.

So, life has non-physical aspects that are not explainable through interactions of nonliving matter.

That is an unevidenced claim. How are you going to find evidence for it when you do not even understand the concept. Oh what a conundrum!!

No, many uninformed are under the impression that evolution explains life. It doesn’t. it's only an attempt to explain the diversity of life. Abiogenesis was intended to explain the first life through interactions of nonliving matter (so evolution would be possible) but it never did (and will never do), hence the whole thing collapses. Abiogenesis failed to be a scientific theory, without Abiogenesis, evolution is not possible.

But it does explain how life go to its present state. Are there still some unanswered questions? Of course. That is the nature of science. But remember, you believe in magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You understand that without causality as a fundamental principle, the entire scientific method collapses, even our argument now would be meaningless. Except for the first cause, every entity is caused even if the cause is not known.

Says who? And no, there is no exception for the first cause.

 

[LIIA]

They only say that NDE's occurred. No evidence for the supernatural.

It’s an oxymoron. the verification of the NDE reported experiences/events and the confirmation that it actually occurred as reported is evidence for the non-physical supernatural nature of consciousness /self-awareness.

 

[LIIA]

Says who? And no, there is no exception for the first cause.

Logic

If you don’t accept the first cause, the only option left is infinite regression which is a logical fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s an oxymoron. the verification of the NDE reported experiences/events and the confirmation that it actually occurred as reported is evidence for the non-physical supernatural nature of consciousness /self-awareness.

Nope, and you do not seem to understand what that word means. And the verification of NDE's only means that it has been verified that many people see things when they are close to daeth.

So what?

It is not evidence for anything else. Once again I need to remind you that you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logic

If you don’t accept the first cause, the only option left is infinite regression which is a logical fallacy.

We do not know if there was a "first cause". That is an unevidenced assumption on your part. Ooh, there it goes. Evidence again. What a bugger.

And no, an infinite regression is not a logical fallacy. That is another concept that you do not appear to understand.

 

[LIIA]

What possible test could show your beliefs to be wrong? The test needs to based upon predictions of your model, not claims of your model.

The prediction is that we should see intention/design/purpose in every entity from the entire universe to subatomic particles, which we do whether you admit it or not.

Show me absence of order through valid inference, my belief is false.

Really? How are these atoms acting intelligently? This appears to be a totally nonsensical throw away claim.

if you don't know, it doesn't mean it's a "throw away claim". see the link below.

Intelligence-in-Matter.pdf (usp.br)

But it does show that we do not appear to need a "purpose". Do you even know what is being cliamed?

Per whom? We see evidence of design/purpose in every entity; there is no evidence to the contrary.

Again, any automated process that yields a highly functional/complex end product is never evidence for the absence of purpose.

 

[LIIA]

NDE's only means that it has been verified that many people see things when they are close to daeth.

See things!! This is exactly the point, the NDE studies verified that what the NDErs reported was true experiences that are not possible or attainable through any physical means not merely imagination or hallucination. You bias clouds your judgment, read the article.

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The prediction is that we should see intention/design/purpose in every entity from the entire universe to subatomic particles, which we do whether you admit it or not.

Show me absence of order through valid inference, my belief is false.

You need to define your terms. And you need a model. Right now this just looks like a restatement of your claims. It has too many flaws to be a proper test.

You seem to have forgotten that I specifically pointed out that the test could not be your claims.

if you don't know, it doesn't mean it's a "throw away claim". see the link below.

Intelligence-in-Matter.pdf (usp.br)

Well that is a lot of nothing. Word salad and nonsense does not mean that it is a reliable scientific paper.

Per whom? We see evidence of design/purpose in every entity; there is no evidence to the contrary.

Again, any automated process that yields a highly functional/complex end product is never evidence for the absence of purpose.

No, you only seem to have confirmation bias. You have not demonstrated one iota of evidence only empty claims.

And there is no need for us to disprove that there is no purpose. All we need to do is to explain how there is no evidence to be seen. The burden of proof is upon you since you are claiming that there is purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See things!! This is exactly the point, the NDE studies verified that what the NDErs reported was true experiences that are not possible or attainable through any physical means not merely imagination or hallucination. You bias clouds your judgment, read the article.

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

No, all that they showed was that those undergoing NDE were aware of their surroundings. There was no evidence of out of body experiences or anything else. By the way, that could be tested, but luckily doctors have more important things in mind when they are tending to those that are close to death.

 

[LIIA]

We do not know if there was a "first cause". That is an unevidenced assumption on your part. Ooh, there it goes. Evidence again. What a bugger.

It’s a logical necessity. The cause is evidenced by the effects. The contingent is evidenced by the non-contingent.

And no, an infinite regression is not a logical fallacy. That is another concept that you do not appear to understand.

Seriously?

Infinite regress - RationalWiki

Homunculus Fallacy (logicallyfallacious.com)

 

[LIIA]

No, all that they showed was that those undergoing NDE were aware of their surroundings. There was no evidence of out of body experiences or anything else. By the way, that could be tested, but luckily doctors have more important things in mind when they are tending to those that are close to death.

meaningless denial. did you read the article? it was in English?

 

[LIIA]

huh?

Good night

 

[LIIA]

huh?

Good night

@Subduction Zone for # 2654. ??

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s a logical necessity. The cause is evidenced by the effects. The contingent is evidenced by the non-contingent.



Seriously?

Infinite regress - RationalWiki

Homunculus Fallacy (logicallyfallacious.com)

You were not using the phase in the same context as in the article. And then there is this:

"This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved."

In other words, it is not up to snuff as written.