Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

I'm a little confused? Are you denying gravity or claiming some explanation for it contrary to what we understand?

I'm saying that the more I look at explanations of gravity and what it is and how it works, the more convinced I am that it just did not happen/evolve/come about without a divine force behind it. Making it. That's what I'm saying. Plus I'm quoting from scientifically oriented sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm saying that the more I look at explanations of gravity and what it is and how it works, the more convinced I am that it just did not happen/evolve/come about without a divine force behind it. Making it. That's what I'm saying. Plus I'm quoting from scientifically oriented sources.

And that is just an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. One would be equally justified to claim that it was pixies that did it. This is actually an abuse of the God concept. It is degrading God to make him just a maintenance man in your belief system.

 

[Valjean]

What amazes me is YoursTrue's conflation of magic with mechanism, and how she finds magic more credible than known, observable mechanisms like chemistry and physics.
She continually asserts personal incredulity as evidence, and is apparently ignorant of the proposed mechanisms and supporting evidence underlying the ToE and creation of the world.

No "breath of life" or hand of God" has ever been observed, nor do they explain anything. They're magic, not mechanisms.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that is just an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. One would be equally justified to claim that it was pixies that did it. This is actually an abuse of the God concept. It is degrading God to make him just a maintenance man in your belief system.

No, it is not. It is reasonable and I am quite SURE that Einstein, who is dead now and felt this life was enough for him, did not really have the answer either. Electricity, if used properly, can help or hurt, depending. I won't go into details now, but I am assuring you that God permits things to happen, He does not force anyone to obey Him. He does not orchestrate them, even as He obviously designed the mechanics for gravity, He can also do what is necessary to obviate when He wants to. Remember -- have a nice day. Hope you're safe as the expression goes today.

 

[YoursTrue]

What amazes me is YoursTrue's conflation of magic with mechanism, and how she finds magic more credible than known, observable mechanisms like chemistry and physics.
She continually asserts personal incredulity as evidence, and is apparently ignorant of the proposed mechanisms and supporting evidence underlying the ToE and creation of the world.

No "breath of life" or hand of God" has ever been observed, nor do they explain anything. They're magic, not mechanisms.

You don't observe it. Frankly, scientists do not have the answer either as to how life started.

 

[YoursTrue]

What amazes me is YoursTrue's conflation of magic with mechanism, and how she finds magic more credible than known, observable mechanisms like chemistry and physics.
She continually asserts personal incredulity as evidence, and is apparently ignorant of the proposed mechanisms and supporting evidence underlying the ToE and creation of the world.

No "breath of life" or hand of God" has ever been observed, nor do they explain anything. They're magic, not mechanisms.

Gravity is gravity. Really you are making it into magic. But that's ok, it's what I expect of you and those like you now, and you know, I really appreciate your answers. It is revelatory. Those who see, see. There are those who are blind, yet have eyesight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is not. It is reasonable and I am quite SURE that Einstein, who is dead now and felt this life was enough for him, did not really have the answer either. Electricity, if used properly, can help or hurt, depending. I won't go into details now, but I am assuring you that God permits things to happen, He does not force anyone to obey Him. He does not orchestrate them, even as He obviously designed the mechanics for gravity, He can also do what is necessary to obviate when He wants to. Remember -- have a nice day. Hope you're safe as the expression goes today.

No, you do not have any evidence for your beliefs, and you only think that there is not any evidence against them. That is exactly what an argument from ignorance is. And if it is obvious that a god made gravity then what is the evidence for that claim. Obvious things are obvious because we can easily find supporting evidence for the claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm saying that the more I look at explanations of gravity and what it is and how it works, the more convinced I am that it just did not happen/evolve/come about without a divine force behind it. Making it. That's what I'm saying. Plus I'm quoting from scientifically oriented sources.

I understand, but you must be aware that taking that position does constitute an argument from ignorance from the standpoint of logic. Maybe it is incredible to you, but you are taking that to mean that it is so incredible that no one can understand it. Therefore, whatever you choose to believe replaces what we do know with what you believe by default and others should accept that too. What do we tell others that believe differently than you or I and we cannot show them that the answers of their incredulity is illogical?

As part of the methodology, scientists do not claim answers that they have no basis for claiming. To do so would be lying. Some of them do have God as part of their world view, but they are honest with themselves when they report what they observe and conclude to others. They cannot accept arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity as saying more than what it says about the person making such claims.

 

[Audie]

I'm saying that the more I look at explanations of gravity and what it is and how it works, the more convinced I am that it just did not happen/evolve/come about without a divine force behind it. Making it. That's what I'm saying. Plus I'm quoting from scientifically oriented sources.

It's easier to just say " Confimation bias'

 

[Audie]

Gravity is gravity. Really you are making it into magic. But that's ok, it's what I expect of you and those like you now, and you know, I really appreciate your answers. It is revelatory. Those who see, see. There are those who are blind, yet have eyesight.

The God- explanation. Isn't magic?

 

[gnostic]

You don't observe it. Frankly, scientists do not have the answer either as to how life started.

But that’s what evidence are - observations.

Observations of the natural phenomena or physical phenomena.

Observations are also whatever “data” or “information” that you can obtain from the evidence, such as quantities and measurements, or just detections.

Evidence and data are what can refute or verify a model (eg scientific theory, hypothesis, theoretical model, etc, are models that explain and predict the phenomena).

No model or concept are ever true “by default”.

Every model or concept must be TESTED, before you can determine if it true or false, verified or refuted, science or not science.

And the only you can test a model, is through observations, and that means evidence or experiments or both, and data.

Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be tested, because God or the Designer cannot be observed, measured or tested.

And there are no observations of God and no evidence of God.

“No evidence” means the “absence of evidence” or “zero evidence”.

No evidence means Creationism or Intelligent Design are unfalsifiable and untested. And if it untestable, it means it cannot be tested.

Without observations and without evidence, concept cannot be “science”...it is that simple, but you stubbornly cannot understand it.
.

 

[Valjean]

You don't observe it. Frankly, scientists do not have the answer either as to how life started.

So? Give me an example of anyone who's observed it and cn support their observation.
Not long ago they could not explain earthquakes, meteorites, hurricanes or disease. Ignorance isn't evidence.

 

[Audie]

So? Give me an example of anyone who's observed it and cn support their observation.
Not long ago they could not explain earthquakes, meteorites, hurricanes or disease. Ignorance isn't evidence.

Ignorance is evidence of certain things
about a persom.

 

[gnostic]

Ignorance is evidence of certain things
about a persom.

Funny but true, at the same time.

 

[YoursTrue]

So? Give me an example of anyone who's observed it and cn support their observation.
Not long ago they could not explain earthquakes, meteorites, hurricanes or disease. Ignorance isn't evidence.

It is not wrong to examine anything. But to say that life emerged however it started from one cell or a couple of cells meeting and then burgeoning out is simple speculation.

 

[YoursTrue]

But that’s what evidence are - observations.

Observations of the natural phenomena or physical phenomena.

Observations are also whatever “data” or “information” that you can obtain from the evidence, such as quantities and measurements, or just detections.

Evidence and data are what can refute or verify a model (eg scientific theory, hypothesis, theoretical model, etc, are models that explain and predict the phenomena).

No model or concept are ever true “by default”.

Every model or concept must be TESTED, before you can determine if it true or false, verified or refuted, science or not science.

And the only you can test a model, is through observations, and that means evidence or experiments or both, and data.

Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be tested, because God or the Designer cannot be observed, measured or tested.

And there are no observations of God and no evidence of God.

“No evidence” means the “absence of evidence” or “zero evidence”.

No evidence means Creationism or Intelligent Design are unfalsifiable and untested. And if it untestable, it means it cannot be tested.

Without observations and without evidence, concept cannot be “science”...it is that simple, but you stubbornly cannot understand it.
.

First of all, can you please define what you mean by creationism?

 

[Valjean]

It is not wrong to examine anything. But to say that life emerged however it started from one cell or a couple of cells meeting and then burgeoning out is simple speculation.

Evidently our posts go in one ear and out the other.
Why are you bringing up this cell thing, again, as a precursor to life? If you have "one cell," you already have life, and the rest is just adaptation.
Life as an emergent property of a series of chemical interactions is more than simple speculation. You have a habit of ignoring research findings and other evidence you've been given.

And, for the hundredth time, what reasonable, evidence-based alternative explanation do you propose? And note I said "explanation," not agent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not wrong to examine anything. But to say that life emerged however it started from one cell or a couple of cells meeting and then burgeoning out is simple speculation.

No, not when one has evidence that supports it.

What makes you think that it is speculation? How would you justify that charge?

 

[Audie]

It is not wrong to examine anything. But to say that life emerged however it started from one cell or a couple of cells meeting and then burgeoning out is simple speculation.

You don't examine your own ideas?

" started from one cell or a couple of cells meeting" is not any kind of speculation.

It's fantasy.
Yours.
Employed as a shabby strawman.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evidently our posts go in one ear and out the other.
Why are you bringing up this cell thing, again, as a precursor to life? If you have "one cell," you already have life, and the rest is just adaptation.
Life as an emergent property of a series of chemical interactions is more than simple speculation. You have a habit of ignoring research findings and other evidence you've been given.

And, for the hundredth time, what reasonable, evidence-based alternative explanation do you propose? And note I said "explanation," not agent.

Either animal and vegetable life emerged from a few cells, wherever they came from, by "natural selection" or they did not. I know that there are chemical reactions that happen naturally. But to then say that's how life began and became vegetation and animals is sheer speculation. Imagination.