Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

LO

Totally and dishonestly false.

The Miller-Urey experiment neither confirmed the hypothesis of abiogenesis nor confirmed that nucleic acids may form on their own. It merely showed that some organic compounds (amino acids) could form from simpler inorganic matter. That's all the experiment achieved. The experiment didn’t show any formation of nucleic acids as you implied. Why the dishonesty? You’re deceiving no one but yourself.

There is no process in nature to create nucleic acids. If it happens miraculously somehow, then its unprotected structure would very easily and very quickly get disrupted. If its structure miraculously stays intact as long as needed, then it has no chance to self-replicate without a living cell. It’s multiple layers of scientific impossibilities.

Let's assume that a strand of RNA can miraculously emerge from non-living matter and somehow its structure can stay intact (for thousands or millions of years), go ahead and demonstrate that such RNA strand may self-replicate without a living cell. Let alone how can this non-living strand turn into a living cell with metabolic functions and self-replication ability. It’s ridiculous.

abiogenesis is not even a theory, it's a felid of study and a hypothesis. How do you confirm a felid of study in progress? Unless it becomes a theory, your claim of a confirmation doesn’t even apply. It’s a dishonest claim merely to confuse the uninformed readers. Stop the nonsense.

LOL! Yes it did.

Just stop the terribly ignorant naysaying and ask questions when you have no clue.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human says I believe my human maths and science began with dusts change.

You have to ask that human belief as a thought why?

You are human. Your consciousness aware innate human. As the human you know your exact life survival.

You are the human.
You drink water.
You eat food.
You need oxygen.
You need natural light.
You need a stable temperature.

Humans exact living position. I survive til I die.

The advice about your own survival. First position normal human. Natural.

So you then want to theory. What for?

Medical says one situation.
Medical as life was changed.

Basic.

Then you see a persistent thinker I want to theory for my personal ego status.

Basic human advice.

As a human I know I look at another human. Exact. Human observation of an observed human.

Exact also.

Medical.

Then the other theist says I theoried for a machines design.

So a basic question where did the idea machine originate.

Looking around as a human at everything I see no advice in nature or natural anything.

Pretty basic human advised.

So you think about the human who wants to do reactions. Who wants to own a machine to then do a reaction.

Question is why and how?

The falling star. Man said was Satan s...not gods. As it was falling and burning fast. Speeding.

You then realise that history cosmic and projectile advice was an asteroid mass of the sun.

The human a non theist owned no human reason to thesis until their human mind was changed by that exact moment.

Where a human owns all advice about what he themes as a theory.

So his mind bio was gone instantly as origin human.

So the changed human man became a theist. His pretend God terms. The star sun rock. The star sun rock converting.

Whilst ice existed. Heavens balanced for nature animals and humans healthy bio existence.

Until the star mass fell into our atmosphere.

Thinking about Russia what ground event would he have seen. If not a nuclear explosion?

To thesis his new witnessed advice nature was changed by a selection process in ice melt and heavenly cooling?

Exact.

As you have to own the exact consciousness to exactly know your own advice only in your owned presence.

A humans consciousness.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nuh uh
Again, the prediction is millions of transitional forms for every organism alive or ever existed on earth. Some challenged examples don’t cut it.

Challenged by who?

Seriously?

This was Noble’s lecture In the University of Oxford on his book, “The Music of Life”,

Yes, we all know how you rely exclusively on Nobel's claims. I'm curious...have you ever read any of the criticisms of his ideas?

Possible number of random interactions is obviously enormous beyond belief.

Well yeah, the possible number of random mutations is huge. No one is disputing that. So what's your point?

I don’t. The Nazis did.

So we agree the Nazis were wrong in how they applied Darwinian concepts.

If you claim the process to be totally random, how can you make functional predictions? Its only possible if the process is directed not random.

Because the process isn't random. Mutations are indeed random, but they are then passed through a non-random filter (selection) that generates non-random results.

That's BIO 100 stuff. You didn't know that?

Gerd B. Müller and the royal society!! (a fellowship of many of the world's most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence)

See #911
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

I see nothing in there about EES being a majority view among biologists. Quote where the papers says that.

Do you suggest we ignore whatever he says on the subject because he is an expert in his field?

The point is, as a source, he is credible; yet you don’t have to take anything as true. Verify it for yourself.

So what do you do with the fact that he believes evolution happens, life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry, and humans share an ancestry with other primates?

Is he still credible?

Do you know the definition of “random”? Do you see any randomness in the observed behavior of the bacteria? Do we really need to debate about this?

The fact remains, you linked to an article that you claimed showed non-random mutations. But the article said absolutely nothing about that, and the non-random claims were your own imposition. Please debate ethically.

Isn’t that obvious? The bacteria are intelligently designed to function and behave in a very specific manner, which has nothing to do with alleged randomness. Obviously if we acknowledge the fact of intelligent design, then the design has to function per the purpose intended by the designer.

You didn't answer the question. Who do you believe is the "designer"? God? Aliens? Time travelling geneticists?

How is the credibility of the source/journal a logical fallacy? You do acknowledge the credibility of the source (the royal society), don’t you?

The credibility is granted, yet I say go the extra mile, verify further if in doubt.

I didn't comment on the credibility of the Royal Society. I noted that you've not shown any support for your claim that the EES is a majority view in biology. Pay better attention.

 

[cladking]

So we agree the Nazis were wrong in how they applied Darwinian concepts.

...And maybe everyone who believes in survival of the fittest whether the y naturally deselect humans or not are wrong as well.

The initiation of the system is beyond the domain of science.

I think it would be more true to say that it is beyond the domain of science at this time. Unless we can use some form of inquiry (I believe we can) that isn't wholly dependent on reducing everything to its constituent parts then this initiation might always be beyond the domain of science.

Yes, it’s definitely not logical. Nonetheless, it resides in the subconscious of many of the so-called proponents of science as an axiom that shapes their mindset/perspective even if they are not aware of it. Simply,” don’t/can’t see it, don’t believe it or it cannot exist”.

Yes, I agree. But the problem is far more severe than your correct analysis. In addition to this foolish axiom there is also the simple fact that all knowledge is held as belief and models. All input is seen in terms of these beliefs. Anomalies are all around us but they are invisible to us. We interpret all of reality in terms of what we "know" so are blind to everything else including the paradoxes of existence.

 

[cladking]

Abiogenesis is a felid of study based on a false assumption without evidence. Abiogenesis holds a false axiom (assumed to be a fact) and uses it as the foundation to build on.

There is no evidence that live of any kind or even a non-living self-replicating genetic material can emerge from non-living matter. None.

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation share the same roots/history. The understanding of spontaneous generation that some complex life forms may emerge relatively quickly from non-living matter, evolved to be the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis today, which is restricted to the presumption that relatively simpler, earliest forms of life arose gradually from non-living matter.

The Term “Abiogenesis” itself was initially coined to refer to “Spontaneous Generation”. Go back to #1448, read it more carefully, it’s clear enough, you should get it.

Abiogenesis today didn’t progress much beyond the 1920 ideas of Oparin-Haldane and 1953 Miller-Urey experiment which showed that some non-living organic compounds may emerge from non-living inorganic matter, other than that, there was never any evidence to support that metabolic functions or the ability of self-replication may emerge on its own from non-living matter. That is why some scientists hypothesized that extraterrestrial life may have migrated to Earth via collision with extraterrestrial objects “panspermia”. It’s another story or “historical narrative” to shift the problem to “elsewhere”, which is a lot similar to Dawkins claim against observed punctuation in the fossil record that gradualism must have happened “elsewhere” and the typically observed punctuation is driven by migratory events. “elsewhere” is always the magic answer to support the ridiculous fairytale.



Yes, unicellular organisms have been around before early Cambrian. Then all major animal phyla suddenly appeared in the fossil record “The Biological Big Bang” in the Cambrian period approximately 541 million years ago, which is known as “Cambrian explosion” but no intermediate varieties of the Cambrian explosion species were found.



Yes, all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record in the Cambrian Period accompanied by major diversification in groups of organisms . Almost all present-day animal phyla appeared during this period.

Preceding the Cambrian period, no fossils were found other than microscopic fossils of microbial life, but no intermediate varieties of the Cambrian explosion species were found.

The Cambrian explosion is known as ‘Darwin’s Dilemma’. He was aware of it and mentioned it in his book the Origin of Species. He wrote, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory”.

2013, the Paleontologist Dr. Mark McMenamin said, “It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse”.

I mostly agree.

I doubt that we are even close to ruling out "abiogenesis" but it would seem to be far more rare than believers would present it if it exists. One thing certain though, consciousness exists and observation says no non living entity has it or displays complex behavior.

Darwin ignored the one thing that defines the individual in a quest for origin of species and then people wonder that he found there is no God and and only "fitness" defines life and death. We easily forget that organisms are dependent on genes which means consciousness and behavior are dependent on genes. We forget that individuals differ and are the building block and the product of life, ideas, thought, and change in species. Nothing can happen without first affecting an individual.

Life will quickly change to fill any niche and speciation occurs at bottlenecks. Both of these are directly related to consciousness so were invisible to Darwin who "thought therefore he existed". Mother nature does not torture the sick, lame, and less fit in order to achieve perfection. All individuals are equally fit except the sick which are dinner.

This isn't to say God must exist or the devil is in the details. It merely shows how Darwin was able to be so wrong and not see the problems created by his theory.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You think the Nazis misinterpreted the ToE. I don’t.

The first one who tried to apply the evolutionary ideas on humans is Darwin himself in his book “The Descent of Man”. In that very book Darwin said, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost CERTAINLY EXTERMINATE, and replace, the savage races throughout the world”.

I always find it interesting that people want to hold up Darwin, like some sort of God of Evolution. He was just a man, and a child of his times. His views on race were basically rubbish and self-serving. But then again, so were his views on gender. And whilst his theories on evolution pushed the boundaries on what people understood, his views on both race and gender decidedly did NOT. Nor has our understanding and research around the ToE frozen in time.

The ToE aren't good, or bad. Much like the theory of gravity is not good or bad. If you throw someone off a roof, I guess they would prefer the theory proves incorrect, but until it is proven incorrect, it's simply the prevailing understanding of how species evolve.
Commonly, people see 'evolution' as some relentless march towards 'better'. It's not. Commonly, people see 'fitness' as a measure of 'best', in some objective way. It's not.

As it turned out, the selection criteria to determine “the savage races” was up to whichever group has political power at the time.

Of course. That is pretty much the very definition of 'fitness'. It is entirely contextual on the environment. In an environment where black people are regularly murdered, for example, the 'fittest' people will not be black. That isn't a judgement on what is better. It is an objective measure of what survives (at least, what survives long enough to pass their genes on).

The outcome was a direct interpretation of the theory as it applies to humans. In any way you look at it, it’s a racist unethical concept that dehumanizes man.

The Nazis similarly interpreted religion in self-serving ways to advance their agendas. They bastardised philosophy. They circumvented political process and protections. Are all these, too, unethical? No, not in and of themselves. It is the way in which they were applied that was unethical. The ToE is simply a theory on how genes are passed on and species develop over time. The rest is not science. How we apply science is completely on us as people. Hiding behind a scientific theory is nonsense. A simple, ham-fisted parrallel is the atomic bomb. Developing the science to build such a thing might have been dubious. Using it? Sure. But the actual science itself? It's morally neutral. It simply is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You may debate that deviations, alterations and misinterpretations had found its way into religions but that is not relevant in any way to the damaging influence driven by the true interpretations of the ToE when applied on humans.

That isn't true. The comparison is exactly relevant. People have abused religions and religious ideas to fulfill some personal agenda and commit acts of evil of their own. I see it happening here with the scientific theory of evolution. Twisted and falsely portrayed to fit some personal agenda and not any facts. The evil is in the abuse and not in what is being abused.

You can't hand wave it away or no true Scotsman it into the cornfield.

The first one who tried to apply the evolutionary ideas on humans is Darwin himself in his book “The Descent of Man”. In that very book he said, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost CERTAINLY EXTERMINATE, and replace, the savage races throughout the world”.

An example of a prediction and not an application. And a prediction that is from the man steeped in the culture of his times and not a claim of the theory. Also an example of a person doing something and not an example of some intrinsic quality of the the theory of evolution. You refute yourself.

What Darwin wrote is a fact that cannot be disputed;

Sure it can. I'm disputing the fallacious use of it.

I used to jog but the ice cubes kept falling out of my glass.
David Lee Roth

That quote is a fact and equally irrelevant to supporting your claim about the theory of evolution being the basis of evil as your quote of Darwin is.

Darwin’s own view of evolution as it applies to human, predicted the inevitable extermination of the so described “savage races” by the “civilized races”. Then how can you say, “There is no evidence that the theory of evolution has intrinsic properties supporting evil or good”?

I can say it because it is true. You give me evidence about Darwin and not about the theory. You say it yourself. "Darwin's own view".

The theory that dehumanizes man, the theory that establishes basis for racism and designation of humans as worthy or unworthy of life, the theory that totally eliminate any basis of morality and replace it with natural selection of the fittest, such theory Is indeed possessing an intrinsic evil state that encourages evil conduct.

It doesn't do any of this. People do that using whatever they can twist. You're on a roll. You get it wrong every time.

The question is what is evil and how is it identified in light of the ToE. What we used to identify as evil was not only committed but became justifiable under the name of science and was considered as a legitimate embracement of the course of nature as it purifies the human race towards future prosperity. The murder of those unfortunate humans stigmatized as unworthy of life was not considered as a crime in light of the evolutionary concepts.

Evil existed long before Darwin, his formulation of the theory and subsequent formulations of the theory. Claiming it is the basis of evil is ridiculous. No one seems to be able to find any sense in claims that scientific theories dehumanize, foment evil acts or exist as the source of evil.

Thank you for own clear and concise words that accurately describes the claim that the ToE establishes basis of evil in the world or possessing some intrinsic state that encourages evil. Indeed, it is.

I try to keep it concise. It doesn't prevent people with agendas from twisting those words to imply I am saying what I am not. There is no evidence that identifies any property of any scientific theory as intrinsically evil.

Also, I'm not trying to overwhelm and swamp anyone to hide the fact that I don't have a valid argument. So, I try to be concise in my victories.

You can respond if you want, but I think I am pretty much done talking with you. I have seen everything I need to know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Challenged by who?


Yes, we all know how you rely exclusively on Nobel's claims. I'm curious...have you ever read any of the criticisms of his ideas?


Well yeah, the possible number of random mutations is huge. No one is disputing that. So what's your point?


So we agree the Nazis were wrong in how they applied Darwinian concepts.


Because the process isn't random. Mutations are indeed random, but they are then passed through a non-random filter (selection) that generates non-random results.

That's BIO 100 stuff. You didn't know that?


I see nothing in there about EES being a majority view among biologists. Quote where the papers says that.


So what do you do with the fact that he believes evolution happens, life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry, and humans share an ancestry with other primates?

Is he still credible?


The fact remains, you linked to an article that you claimed showed non-random mutations. But the article said absolutely nothing about that, and the non-random claims were your own imposition. Please debate ethically.


You didn't answer the question. Who do you believe is the "designer"? God? Aliens? Time travelling geneticists?


I didn't comment on the credibility of the Royal Society. I noted that you've not shown any support for your claim that the EES is a majority view in biology. Pay better attention.

Those darned time travelling geneticists. They really know how to express themselves.

 

[gnostic]

You may debate that deviations, alterations and misinterpretations had found its way into religions but that is not relevant in any way to the damaging influence driven by the true interpretations of the ToE when applied on humans. The first one who tried to apply the evolutionary ideas on humans is Darwin himself in his book “The Descent of Man”. In that very book he said, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost CERTAINLY EXTERMINATE, and replace, the savage races throughout the world”.

What Darwin wrote is a fact that cannot be disputed; Darwin’s own view of evolution as it applies to human, predicted the inevitable extermination of the so described “savage races” by the “civilized races”. Then how can you say, “There is no evidence that the theory of evolution has intrinsic properties supporting evil or good”?

The theory that dehumanizes man, the theory that establishes basis for racism and designation of humans as worthy or unworthy of life, the theory that totally eliminate any basis of morality and replace it with natural selection of the fittest, such theory Is indeed possessing an intrinsic evil state that encourages evil conduct.

The question is what is evil and how is it identified in light of the ToE. What we used to identify as evil was not only committed but became justifiable under the name of science and was considered as a legitimate embracement of the course of nature as it purifies the human race towards future prosperity. The murder of those unfortunate humans stigmatized as unworthy of life was not considered as a crime in light of the evolutionary concepts.

Thank you for own clear and concise words that accurately describes the claim that the ToE establishes basis of evil in the world or possessing some intrinsic state that encourages evil. Indeed, it is.

Do you want me to use the same twisted logic as you have been using on Darwin?

Ok.

We have Muslim from the Al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorist groups, beheading people in the name of Islam and Allah. Does that mean Allah, the Quran and Islam are “evil”?

That’s exactly the same logic you are using with regarding to you blaming Darwin as being evil. I could use this same logic you are using, and blame every atrocities committed by bad Muslims upon your god and your religion.

Muslims sold slaves. Blame it on Islam and Allah.

The Islamic laws have unjustly punished women - victims of rapes - so blame Allah for unjust legal systems and unjust verdicts.

I am just using same arguments you have been using, where you have blamed Darwin for Nazi Holocaust, which Darwin had nothing to do with.

Darwin didn’t even invent Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer did...but hey, if you want to place blames, then everyone is free to blame Islam for the world’s woes.

Basically, you have opened a can of worms that you can’t put back in.

 

[cladking]

I find it incredible that believers won't own up to the consequences of their beliefs. Certainly they could be right and maybe this means we should celebrate and laud darwin award winners and cheer them on. Maybe we really could breed undesirable traits out of the human race without trampling on lives and liberty. But the fact remains that so long as most people believe that the fit survive preferentially to all others and that all species are in the constant process of being more perfectly adapted to their environment these beliefs will remain a leading cause of human deaths.

Religions at least have morals like "thou shalt not kill" to reign in marginalization and murder but what is to stop believers in science? A human life is worth a few dollars in chemicals or a million in a court of law. Is this all that protects us from those who believe in Evolution?

It is NOT my contention that Darwin was "evil" or that belief in Evolution is "evil". My contention is just as the Inquisition was evil so too is the basis of many practices and beliefs today. Or for those believers who lack all morals it is my contention that laws are being based in ways that are not cost effective to society and deprive individuals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Jose Fly]

Those darned time travelling geneticists. They really know how to express themselves.

They certainly are busy!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They certainly are busy!

At least they have educations and jobs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They certainly are busy!

What I find interesting in some of these posts is a complete lack of understanding of science, theories, the concepts and definitions of terms under discussion. For instance, biological fitness and natural selection clearly seem to baffle some folks.

 

[rational experiences]

The reason humans are psychic. Is due to our bio ownership origin life....water microbes is now inherited outside of our human biology.

It cannot enter our body. It protects our skin instead from fallout you cause theist man.

Exact advice.

We get changed. For thousands and thousands of years. Human sperm changed. Human ovaries changed.

We are all first innocent humans only and not theists.

Humans and born babies. Every one of us first position.

Human.
Owning consciousness via biology human sex only then parent origin human bio water mass feedback.

Consciousness.

So we all get messages. We all exhibit personal only human thoughts.

We tell human stories for human agreed rewards only.

As rich men liars introduced group cult behaviour. Awards for new ideas for money making to keep me rich schemes.

Rich men control. Why they claimed as king and lord they were man's god.

As men theoried all terms as the God man belief. Theists only.

As just a baby human to man adult. Your theories are fake.

We breathe back in oxygen and what we eat or herbal remedy with a reoxygen generated supply intake by mass of water from Ice melt only. Saviour. Holy water not chemical heavy metal fallout polluted water.

We regain health. When no technology of humans was practiced. Just as taught.

We lived okay without any greedy man's machines. Or your human theories humans.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I find it incredible that believers won't own up to the consequences of their beliefs. Certainly they could be right and maybe this means we should celebrate and laud darwin award winners and cheer them on. Maybe we really could breed undesirable traits out of the human race without trampling on lives and liberty. But the fact remains that so long as most people believe that the fit survive preferentially to all others and that all species are in the constant process of being more perfectly adapted to their environment these beliefs will remain a leading cause of human deaths.

That's not what 'fitness' means in biology, and anyone who doesn't think through the implications of 'more perfectly adapted to their environment' is unqualified to offer comment.

 

[cladking]

That's not what 'fitness' means in biology, and anyone who doesn't think through the implications of 'more perfectly adapted to their environment' is unqualified to offer comment.

I'm guessing that just like Darwin you are assuming that populations and environments are stable and individuals play no role in species. I'm guessing you're taking the environments as evidence of Evolution just as you take the the existence of the "fossil record" as evidence of Evolution.

Again, and for the many reasons I've presented I believe you and Darwin are wrong. "Evidence" is necessarily defined in terms of beliefs and paradigms and THIS is where your error lies. It also lies in definitions that are not reflective of reality. There is no such thing as "species" only groups of similar individuals who are each more different than any two snowflakes.

 

[cladking]

There is no such thing as "species" only groups of similar individuals who are each more different than any two snowflakes.

Scientists poison rats with arsenic until an arsenic resistant rat emerges and says this is evidence of Evolution. What they should ask instead is why one rat is more resistant than another in every generation.

They would learn every species has individuals less susceptible to arsenic derived from the genes of ancestors who had been "selected" for behavior and this behavior derives from consciousness that derives from genes. I'm sorry reality is so complicated and reductionistic science can't even see it's complex. This is the nature of reality and change in species. Only homo omnisciencis is wholly out of the loop. Most consciousness knows this on some level.

Mother nature doesn't hand out poison to create new species. Man does this in the lab and it is not evidence of how species change.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, it’s definitely not logical. Nonetheless, it resides in the subconscious of many of the so-called proponents of science as an axiom that shapes their mindset/perspective even if they are not aware of it. Simply,” don’t/can’t see it, don’t believe it or it cannot exist”.

But this violates the essence of science. Almost everything we now know to exist was once unknown and unevidenced. Very few modern scientists would hold the view that what's currently unknown, unseen or unevidenced can not exist.

I’m not presupposing anything. The causal dependency of relative/caused entities cannot continue in infinite regression. An absolute is necessary at the end of the chain. It’s not a presupposition; it’s a logical necessity. Infinite regress is a logical fallacy.

I don't see a need for an "entity" at all.

As explained above, “can’t see it, can’t experiment with it, it doesn’t exist”

As stated previously: this is not a viewpoint compatible with science.

The absolute reality is not confined within the domain of our ability to observe/comprehend. The observable domain of science doesn’t establish a sufficient disclosure of objective reality that independently lies outside the limits of awareness/knowledge.

Alas, imagined realities and entities have no concrete evidence of existence for science to work with. They're open only to imagination.

Most if not all scientists believe only the information obtained through observation or through experimentations, which is a logical approach only within a limited domain. The boundaries of such domain don’t create any limitation to the absolute reality that independently lies beyond that domain.

Again, while a supernatural reality might exist, until it produces observable, measurable, testable evidence of itself, it is outside the realm of science.

The scientific (physical) domain is not the only domain of reality. We can logically understand the existence of other (non-physical/metaphysical) domains, but the specific knowledge of such domains is not attainable through experimental/observational science. Beyond the limits of observational science, logic/philosophy and historiography/religions are the means to gain such knowledge, not observation or experimentation.

Didn't this last sentence contradict itself?
If there were a reliable way to access metaphysical knowledge, wouldn't we have a consistent, universally agreed-upon picture of this unevidenced domain?

Prof Denis Noble, as a scientist is cognizant of the deficiency of the experimental/observational science to provide fundamental answers concerning the metaphysical domain.

Has he provided any evidence that a metaphysical domain exists?

In the University of Oxford, Noble presented a lecture on his book, “The Music of Life”, he addressed this issue when he said “There are many metaphysical questions we can ask about what is life and what am I, what are you, and we all have our own ways of answering that kind of question, that's the function of course of religion and there are many religions, The important point ….my point is not to say which is right or which is wrong is to say think about it it's not so certain we know what we are”

So he admits he has no answers, and no idea "who we are?"

(138) Music of Life Lecture - Denis Noble - YouTube

Unless observable, concrete, testable evidence exists, it's outside the purview of science. A psychicly perceptible reality may exist, but it's perceptible only to the experiencer.

Here is the paradox, if you understand that God is necessarily “non-physical”, and the methodology of observation/experimentation cannot deal with the “non-physical”, then you cannot deny the existence of God or insist to understand God's nature on the basis of empirical evidence.

I don't understand that God is, at all.
If empirical evidence for the non-physical does not exist, the logical conclusion is not to conclude that God exists, but is mysterious, but to dismiss belief in God, pending evidence.

It doesn’t apply. Empirical evidence is only applicable within the physical domain and cannot be used to understand the nature of God’s being.

Therefore, logically,God's existence must be dismissed, pending actual evidence.

You cannot apply the wrong means in the wrong domain.

Agreed.

You want to bring God to physical domain to verify what he is but if you can do that, then he is not God. God is neither physical nor confined within the limits of space or time. These limitations define our realm, it limits us but it’s totally irrelevant to God’s being/nature.

Therefore, belief in Him must be withheld, till actual, tangible evidence appears.
I don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns, because there is no tangible evidence they exist. This is reasonable.
How is this any different from belief in God?

But beyond God’s nature that cannot be observed/understood, we can definitely utilize observational science, logic, philosophy and historiography specifically with respect to data drawn from authentic historical religious records to understand God’s attributes.

You're still presupposing God. You're using him as a major premise, but not providing any evidence for this premise.
"Authentic historical, religious records?" How is this authenticity determined? These records are mere folklore.
"Observational science?" There is no observational science supporting a god. If there were, God would be a scientific fact. You say yourself that "God cannot be observed."

 

[cladking]

Again, while a supernatural reality might exist, until it produces observable, measurable, testable evidence of itself, it is outside the realm of science.

Calling it "supernatural" is akin to agreeing that the unseen can't exist is axiomatic.

Everything unseen is hardly "supernatural".

You are engaging in a semantical argument.

 

[cladking]

If there were a reliable way to access metaphysical knowledge, wouldn't we have a consistent, universally agreed-upon picture of this unevidenced domain?

Modern science is reductionistic. There are no means of examining overarching metaphysics or concepts. You can't design an experiment to show that experiment is a legitimate means to understand nature. Certainly a science based on experiment has no meaning outside of experiment though. this is just cold hard logic. It is virtually true by definition whether believers in Evolution want to see it or not.

Therefore, belief in Him must be withheld, till actual, tangible evidence appears.
I don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns, because there is no tangible evidence they exist. This is reasonable.
How is this any different from belief in God?

What possible reason is there to believe in unicorns?

We exist therefore reality began is axiomatic and without any knowledge of how this came to be then an initial cause is certainly possible.

Whatever you call this Initial Cause it certainly mustta happened until such time as we have some evidence to the contrary. I might add since this is Darwin's Illusion here that "consciousness" had an origin as well and not even abiogenesis is well suited to explaining it.

"Observational science?" There is no observational science supporting a god.

There is NO SUCH THING as "observational science" now or ever. All observation is dependent on the observer. Our science is Observation > Experiment and we have NO SCIENCE without experiment. I propose that "consciousness" is life and life is another kind of science that operates on Observation > Logic.

If you want to use terms like this please define them. I could tell what LIIA meant from context but I can't tell what you meant.