Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

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

There's so many. Tell us your chosen flavour.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You need something more than an unsupported claim to support such an accusation. Remember the example of someone accusing you of being a child abuser without any evidence. You would not like it if someone brought up such a serious charge against you.

 

[Audie]

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.

They did not.

It's your imagination at fault here, you are
just making up silly impossible ideas, and
dishonestly presenting them as what others say.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need something more than an unsupported claim to support such an accusation. Remember the example of someone accusing you of being a child abuser without any evidence. You would not like it if someone brought up such a serious charge against you.

That's ridiculous. Where's any evidence that evolution began from a couple of cells? Stop bringing up about child abuse please. Unless you want to. But if you do again, I won't be answering you and you can go on as you and others want to. But now that you mention it, perhaps it is in the same realm as you mention? In other words, stop the comparison.
I'm not talking about the chemical experiment leaned on to verify the chemical reaction, I forget the names of the scientists who testtubed the experiment as if that proves evolution, but it does not. If you think so, well, that's what you (and others) think.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, not when one has evidence that supports it.

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

Where's the proof? Where's the evidence that life grew from a cell or two? Not talking about the Miller/Uray experiment but proof or evidence that life grew from a couple of cell interactions.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone Can you please show any proof or evidence that life burgeoned to vegetation, animals from a couple of cells?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's ridiculous. Where's any evidence that evolution began from a couple of cells? Stop bringing up about child abuse please. Unless you want to. But if you do again, I won't be answering you and you can go on as you and others want to. But now that you mention it, perhaps it is in the same realm as you mention? In other words, stop the comparison.
I'm not talking about the chemical experiment leaned on to verify the chemical reaction, I forget the names of the scientists who testtubed the experiment as if that proves evolution, but it does not. If you think so, well, that's what you (and others) think.

DNA is the evidence. The naturally forming nested hierarchies from various independent sources is evidence for it. You just demonstrated that your claim was as justified as someone calling you a child abuser. You had no evidence for your claim, instead you demanded evidence from others. That is wrong. That would be like your accuser demanding evidence that you were not a child abuser. And no, it is a fair comparison. If what you claimed was an accurate accusation against a scientist it could ruin his career. In other words I used a fake serious accusation against you just as you made a fake accusation against scientists. I have integrity and would never seriously make such a charge. Why do you keep making such charges?

The person that makes the claim needs evidence for their claim. You had none.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone Can you please show any proof or evidence that life burgeoned to vegetation, animals from a couple of cells?

Yes. I can. I mentioned it in my prior posts. Do you need examples of the nested hierarchies that point to a single common ancestor?

Meanwhile, where is your evidence that they only had speculation? I have asked for evidence of that countless times and you never provided any. Please provide yours first or admit that you have none.

 

[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.
.

I believe there is evidence of God. That you don't see it or accept it does not mean there is no evidence. Evidence of God is life itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe there is evidence of God. That you don't see it or accept it does not mean there is no evidence. Evidence of God is life itself.

You may believe that there is evidence of God, but you almost certainly do not have any. Don't blame others. You may not understand what is and is not reliable evidence. And no, life itself is not evidence of God. Now you are using a circular argument.


The concept of scientific evidence is quite easy to understand. And I can assure you that even you will agree that there is no scientific evidence for God.

Tell me, what reasonable test could possibly refute the existence of God?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. I can. I mentioned it in my prior posts. Do you need examples of the nested hierarchies that point to a single common ancestor?

Meanwhile, where is your evidence that they only had speculation? I have asked for evidence of that countless times and you never provided any. Please provide yours first or admit that you have none.

Do me a favor. Give me a brief summary of the evidence you believe exists about cells fusing, morphing, or growing to become vegetation and animals. Just a couple of thoughts if you remember what you think about how it happened for sure from a few cells.

 

[YoursTrue]

You may believe that there is evidence of God, but you almost certainly do not have any. Don't blame others. You may not understand what is and is not reliable evidence. And no, life itself is not evidence of God. Now you are using a circular argument.


The concept of scientific evidence is quite easy to understand. And I can assure you that even you will agree that there is no scientific evidence for God.

Tell me, what reasonable test could possibly refute the existence of God?

Is there any? I understand about figuring evolution. I no longer agree with it. I believe God exists and is actively concerned in mankind and bettering our conditions in the near future. I mean this argument is almost like Einstein who at least professed a possibility that there is a God although he didn't understand it. Can I blame him? Not really, based on his thinking and rationality and background.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do me a favor. Give me a brief summary of the evidence you believe exists about cells fusing, morphing, or growing to become vegetation and animals. Just a couple of thoughts if you remember what you think about how it happened for sure from a few cells.

I did, but you did not understand it.

Do you understand that all of life points to a single ancestor by several different means? The fossil record, homology, embryology, genetics and more all can be used to make phylogenetic trees and all of those trees point towards a single ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there any? I understand about figuring evolution. I no longer agree with it. I believe God exists and is actively concerned in mankind and bettering our conditions in the near future. I mean this argument is almost like Einstein who at least professed a possibility that there is a God although he didn't understand it. Can I blame him? Not really, based on his thinking and rationality and background.

I agree. There is no test. And you also just agreed that there is no scientific evidence for God.

 

[YoursTrue]

You may believe that there is evidence of God, but you almost certainly do not have any. Don't blame others. You may not understand what is and is not reliable evidence. And no, life itself is not evidence of God. Now you are using a circular argument.


The concept of scientific evidence is quite easy to understand. And I can assure you that even you will agree that there is no scientific evidence for God.

Tell me, what reasonable test could possibly refute the existence of God?

You may believe your reasoning is logical and true. I no longer believe that evolution and "survival of the fittest" is why and how lifeforms came about. You may ask why. One reason is that DNA is very complex. Perhaps you know how DNA came about? hMaybe you do. Houses have builders. Some houses are built with bricks and have different layouts. Those are illustrations. Even the bricks had to be made by someone. Logic and observation of life is telling. But before I believed I was an atheist. Can I prove to you that God exists? As Paul declared before he was put to death, I paraphrase, if he could make someone a believer, he would. In other words, God has to show a person. No one else can.

 

[YoursTrue]

I did, but you did not understand it.

Do you understand that all of life points to a single ancestor by several different means? The fossil record, homology, embryology, genetics and more all can be used to make phylogenetic trees and all of those trees point towards a single ancestor.

From what I understand you to be saying, there are said to be different branches perhaps stemming from one or more cellular ancestors?

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree. There is no test. And you also just agreed that there is no scientific evidence for God.

Scientific evidence?
"Bring forth A blind people that have eyes, and A deaf that have ears." (Isaiah 43)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may believe your reasoning is logical and true. I no longer believe that evolution and "survival of the fittest" is why and how lifeforms came about. You may ask why. One reason is that DNA is very complex. Perhaps you know how DNA came about? hMaybe you do. Houses have builders. Some houses are built with bricks and have different layouts. Those are illustrations. Even the bricks had to be made by someone. Logic and observation of life is telling. But before I believed I was an atheist. Can I prove to you that God exists? As Paul declared before he was put to death, I paraphrase, if he could make someone a believer, he would. In other words, God has to show a person. No one else can.

Yes, my arguments are based on logic. Yours are not. That is why you cannot find any evidence for your beliefs.

You are using poor analogies and arguments from ignorance. If you learned what is and what is not evidence you would be all but forced to accept evolution.


When it comes to concepts scientists can be like cats at times. And if you ever tried to herd cats you would know that getting them all to go in direction is near impossible. Yet over 99% of scientists accept the theory of evolution. Do you know why? Because to be a scientist one must understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific evidence?
"Bring forth A blind people that have eyes, and A deaf that have ears." (Isaiah 43)

But now you are only describing creationists. They are the blind and deaf ones. Not those actively looking for answers to our world.

 

[YoursTrue]

But now you are only describing creationists. They are the blind and deaf ones. Not those actively looking for answers to our world.

OK, you may consider me blind and deaf. I'll wait. The world speaks for itself.