How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[TagliatelliMonster]

"God of Gaps" he cries out .. "Waaaaa" using a term he does not know .. addressing a concept he does not understand ?

I didn't tell you about my God friend .. that is not what is being discussed .. so it is not my "God of Gaps" -- but yours .. as we are talking about your definition of God .. as per your claim .. in support of your claim -- the big Gap .. your inability to provide such a definition to clarify your position .. just answering/ confirming that you don't know .. perhaps not having thought about it much .. what you would consider a Godly power .. "Magic" were such a being to present itself .. and do .. you simply don't know .. what it is that you think .. not having thought .. due to some "Thought Stopping" barrier .. very similar to what one would expierience debating fundimentalist from of the destructive cult variety .. where some naughty cult leader has been using sophisticated mind control techniques. .. Not in any way suggesting that you are a member of such -- just a comment on the "Thought Stopping" similarity -- on both sides of the Secular-Theocratic fence.

We are atheists. It's not our job to define gods. That's the job of the theist who claims such a being exists.
So we go with the definitions provided by them.

And those definitions are on par with magic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are atheists. It's not our job to define gods. That's the job of the theist who claims such a being exists.
So we go with the definitions provided by them.

And those definitions are on par with magic.

Well, not all gods are of the theistic kind. But don't let that stop you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, not all gods are of the theistic kind. But don't let that stop you.

The gods discussed here, are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are the one who likes to invent undetectable third parties that have no other point of contact with reality except your imagination.

As analogous to the god you insist on.

There is supporting evidence for God

There is not. There are people who make claims and who believe them.
That's not evidence. That's indistinguishable from imagination and believing said imagination.

, so a claim for God is not meaningless, but it is evidence that you reject

Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

, and that is probably part of your incredulity fallacy that you are involved in and part of your empiricism only beliefs.

You might want to look up what an argument from incredulity actually is. You're not using it correctly.
And yes, when it comes to claims about external objective reality, my standard to believe them is empirical evidence.
That's a rational stance to take. I posit that you hold the same standard when it comes to claims that aren't part of your religious beliefs.

I understand the difference and that science can only say that for their purposes there is no need for.....
It is from there that atheists step out and say "Science, only science and empiricism is real and so there are no gods."

Who are these atheists that you are referring to?
Arguing strawmen again?

Please go ahead and quote me where I ever said such.

At best, you'll find that I might say things like I live my life as if there are no gods. As in, for all practical intents and purposes, I assume there are no gods.
This is a rational stance to take, since there is no evidence at all for gods nor is there any need for them in anything.

This is why they are on par with undetectable graviton pixies in my book.
Can I prove there are no such pixies? No. But since there is zero evidence for such and no reason at all to propose their existence, I live my life as if they don't exist.

I do this out of necessity.

When you cross the road, you also assume that there is no invisible truck coming at you about to run you over. Not because you KNOW there is no such truck. Rather because you have no reason to think there IS.

For all practical intents and purposes, non-existence is assumed until existence is sufficiently demonstrated.
Again, this is a rational position.

Are you saying that you do not say that no third party was involve in evolution etc?

I say that there is no reason to think there is and that there is no need for such either.
So, as explained above, for all practical intents and purposes I assume there wasn't.

You can change my mind by either demonstrating the necessity of such a third party or demonstrating/supporting that even though it's not required, it still played a role. I wouldn't know what that evidence would look like but that's not my problem - that's your problem, since you are the one who insists on it.

So, up to you to formulate the testable hypothesis and then offer independently verifiable evidence for it.

All you seem to have though is "I believe it and you can't prove it wrong".
Which isn't very convincing, to say the least.

No, you say that all the time.

Ow? Do I?
Then quote me where I said that.
If you can't find such a quote of me, then I demand an apology. Which, I bet, will not be forthcoming.
Just another strawman.

It is a statement of faith just as my "I believe a third party was involved", is a statment of faith.
I don't see that you saying that I have faith, is a criticism, even if mentality may have meant it that way.
I also don't see that my saying that you are probably a believer in scientism is a criticism.

Typical creationist tactic. Trying to drag down the level of your opponent to the same low level of "make belief" to then pretend as if your beliefs are on par with mine.
The hilarious part of this tactic, is that in there is embedded an acknowledgement that "faith" is a very bad reason to believe something.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are positing nothing

I am not positing anything additional to the sufficient processes we already know about.
Because I have no reason to...

and I am positing a being who has shown Himself in history according to many people.

Right. So you are just repeating claims.

So now the cake thieves are magical? Hmmm

Sure, just to make the analogy more complete. Remember, you are not positing addition natural phenomenon... the stuff you wish to add to the sufficient natural process, is of extra-ordinary / magical nature.
But non-magical cake thieves works as well in my example for the point being made.
There is sufficient explanation without having to invoke any third parties and there is no evidence for third parties. So why invoke them?

Anyway your cake example is not really equivalent, it is just an argument set up to point in one direction.

It is equivalent. There is sufficient explanation with the evidence at hand and there is no evidence for additional entities being involved.
That makes it equivalent.

If you want to talk about belief in a creator or belief that there is no creator then do that

First, we are discussing the claim that there IS a creator. Not the claim that there is NOT.
Secondly, do you understand what an analogy is and why it is useful?

and not about chocolate cakes and kids with chocolate on their mouths and tummy aches.

The analogy is not about chocolate cakes. It's about having a sufficient explanation and what that implies.

Evidence for evolution does not point to "no designer", that is a faith based position.

How many times must this be addressed before you will stop repeating it?
I have already acknowledged multiple times in multiple posts that we don't (even CAN'T) have evidence of "no designer".
Just like in my cake example we don't (and CAN'T) have evidence of "no cake thieves".

What we DO have is a sufficient explanation for diversity of species (evolution) or my missing cake (the kid ate it) and that this implies that there is no NEED to invent additional entities to account for the diversity of species (or the missing cake) - especially since there is no evidence to support such involvement.

Sheesh man................

You are being confused now. It is not me who first came up with the idea of "need". It is atheist who say there is "no need"

Not just atheists. Biologists. Scientists. These people are both aheists and theists.

,,,,,,,,,,,, and using your idea, that would be stronger than saying there is no OPTION or POSSIBILITY. Are you saying that there is no "option" or "possibility" of a designer? That is a strong statement and is a statement of faith.

I have never said any such thing and I would appreciate it if you finally start to let go of that strawman and actually take in what people are ACTUALLY telling you.

Actually I would say that it is you who has the argument from ignorance. You are saying that there is lack of evidence for a designer so that means there is no designer.

I have never not once said any such thing and in fact I have explicitly brought this to your attention multiple times.

At this point, I'm going to start to accuse you of deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

And let's not forget that you are willfully ignoring the idea that this designer could be spirit, uncreated, not a detectable part of the universe.

Yes, I am ignoring such entities. So are you when it comes to anything other then your god of choice.
The reason is simple: being undetectable, they have NO manifestation whatsoever and thus can ONLY be ignored.
They make no difference. They are indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

I ignore such beings just like you ignore undetectable trucks when crossing the street.
I do this by practical necessity.

I can literally NOT keep undetectable things into account, because there is nothing there to take into account.

If I throw an undetectable rock at you, will you care? Or will you ignore it? How could you do anything BUT ignore it?
In fact, there even is actually nothing there TO ignore..............................

And let's not forget the fact that you and science do not know if a designer changed the environments for the system to work or initially designed the whole evolution system.

Just like I and science don't know that undetectable cake thieves aren't responsible for the missing cake.

You keep making this argument from ignorance.
Not being able to eliminate the option, does not - by ANY means, raise the probability or credibility thereof.
Try some positive evidence FOR your claim instead of pointing out the obvious of not having any evidence of things NOT being the case..............

Science acknowledges this but you have a position of faith, a belief that there is no designer

And once again with the strawman.

No, I just believe that there is a designer.

Yes. You "just" believe that. I agree.

You claim there is no need, so demonstrate how you conclude that

Already did. Multiple times. There is a sufficient explanation that HAS evidence.
That eliminates the need for additional unsupported entities.

if you want or just stick to your position of faith, that there is no designer.

Again with the strawman.

Arguments from ignorance are probably common with people who are arguing that God definitely is needed or definitely is not needed.

Nope.

"science doesn't know so therefor it is a credible option" - your argument in a nutshell. Classic argument from ignorance.

I have faith that God did it

Yes.

, you have faith that there is no need for a God,

No. No faith required. It is a fact. When you have a sufficient explanation, that factually and effectively eliminates the need for something additional.

but seem to want to make it something that only I need to justify by argument and that you do not.

Because you claim there IS something additional. You need to support / justify that claim, yes.
I'm not making such a claim, so there is nothing for me to support / justify.

But if you are the one making the positive claim, that there is no need for a designer, then you should show it to be true.

Already did. Multiple times.
If you have a sufficient explanation, that by definition eliminates the NEED for additional stuff.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you trying to say that a philosophical acceptance of empiricism only in your search for what is true, and rejecting the possibility that other forms of evidence could be true, is not an argument from incredulity,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or more accurately, a way of life based on incredulity?

It was just a facepalm at your complete misuse of the "argument from incredulity".

You might want to read up what it actually means. You're not using it correctly. And it's not the first time either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So do you and scientists believe all life forms evolve or maybe only some of them or maybe some do not evolve?

Evolution is an ongoing process.

As long as life exists and reproduces with variation, is in competition for limited resources and in a struggle for survival in an ever-changing environment.. life will evolve. It's inevitable.

Either it evolves or it goes extinct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you think scientists think fish knew what they were evolving to?

I'm baffled at the ignorance displayed in that question.
So baffled that I have a hard time taking it seriously.
Sounds more like trolling then anything else.

Some fish obviously stayed fish, while some evolved according to science, little by little and eventually became humans. So the question is, what is your personal idea of your future? Not all fish of course evolved (according to science) to be gorillas, monkeys, or humans, right?

All fish evolved.
All living things evolved.
The fish species that exist today did not exist 350+ million years ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand that. That is also what most scientists say. Some fish remained fish in the water while others, they say, eventually developed legs and lungs that could sustain them out of water and they could not revert back to strictly water dwellers.

1. all of them "remained" vertebrates

2. tiktaalik. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Fish still remain fish, don't they

Some became amphibians.

gene pools are constantly changing, which you seem to equate with evolution.

You should as well.

humans do not revert by natural means to whatever they evolved from, do they?

Individuals might if they become demented. The mind is like an onion, added one layer on top of another as it evolves from infant to adult. With dementia, the process reverses, and one begins evolving back into what one began as. But populations don't do that.

So where's the substantive proof/show/evidence (whatever you want to call it) that demonstrates or shows which fish morphed to be more than fish.

You can find it in textbooks, unless you'd care to examine the source material yourself.

Unless of course you want to say that all humans are fish

All humans have fish ancestors.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science, by necessity, uses empiricism only (well in theory at least), and ignores evidence that cannot be tested or falsified.

That doesn't make sense. Evidence is examined and interpreted. Unfalsifiable claims (in the Popperian sense) are unevidenced. I say in the Popperian sense since correct claims with empirical support also cannot be falsified. The difference is that the latter could be falsified if it were incorrect and the former is nether correct nor incorrect, but rather, "not even wrong."

As a human however I see other evidence and can use that in the development of my worldview.

You see the same evidence as others. You interpret it differently. You say that it supports that which you chose to believe by faith, not evidence. The evidence doesn't support a god belief. It is consistent with naturalism.

If you have closed off possibilities of what a god might be needed for except creation and giving life then you have pretty important possibilities but neglect any other possibilities of a god being important during and after the lives of people and the history of the universe and of humanity.

I don't neglect any possibility. I also don't embrace the insufficiently evidenced ones.

I'm discussing all types of possible gods and all potentialities, even those arrived at outside of the empiricist box.

I've divided gods into interventionist and noninterventionist as I defined those terms. Unlike the latter, the former would be detectible if they exist when they intervene. The Christian god is described as interventionalist. It is said to answer prayer, for example. When that claim has been scientifically tested, prayer has had no beneficial effect.

We don't do such tests for a noninterventionist god.

What I'm telling you is that the type of god that could be detected by its present-day interventions has never been detected, and the type of god that is gone and does nothing today cannot. Also, the existence or nonexistence of the latter type of god, besides being unknowable (any claim would fall under "not even wrong"), is irrelevant.

 

[shunyadragon]

As I understand it, because science finds no evidence of superior unseen intelligent forces, that does not mean these forces do not exist or -- that they do exist. In oither words, would you say the jury of science is out on this issue? In other words, it is not within the realm or scope of investigation according to scientists to determine whether there IS an unseen intelligent force behind the complexity of living matter?

Yes

 

[shunyadragon]

So again, are you saying that the authors of the Bible and the church "fathers" believed what they wrote was literal, even when they clearly wrote symbolic references, such as in the book of Daniel? Perhaps you can clarify...?

So again . . . ????? I have described this specifically in several posts. It is well acknowledged and documented that allegorical and symbolic citations exist throughout the scriptures of the Torah, Bible and the Quran, and the authors of the Pentateuch, the NT, and the Church Fathers consider the accounts of Creation and the history as described in the Pentateuch as historically accurate based on what they believed at the time without the knowledge of science,.

All the cultures of the world in the history of humanity have allegorical and symbolic stories and sayings and it is acknowledge now and then that they are not literally true, but they also had historical accounts and records that they considered historically accurate, The ancient Chinese historical records found in their first writings are considered the most historically accurate,

If you consider the accounts of Genesis and the Pentateuch such as Nosh's Flood as interpreted as allegorical or symbolic today then there is no problem of accepting the documented academic science, history and archaeology concerning the history of the Middle East, humanity and evolution without stoic denial of the facts.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think it would be a great idea if you actually educated yourself on he basics of evolution cause you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the topic

The lack of knowledge of science and evolution in this case is intentional.

 

[wellwisher]

That is one of too many references concerning existence. You tend to choose one that fits your subjective biased agenda.

Existence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.Existence is the state of having being or reality in contrast to nonexistence and nonbeing. Existence is often contrasted with essence: the essence of an entity is its essential features or qualities, which can be understood even if one does not know whether the entity exists.

Physical and mental

Entities that exist on a physical level include objects encountered in everyday life, like stones, trees, and human bodies, as well as entities discussed in modern physics, like electrons and protons.[52][f] Physical entities can be observed and measured; they possess mass and a location in space and time.[54]

Say a person goes to a Doctor to get pain killers for their back. They may have genuine pain or they may be pretending, just to get pills. How do you know if their pain actually exists? Some doctors will give the medicine, and others will not. Does that make it virtual pain where it both exists and does not exist like Schrodinger's cat?

Theoretically, the only way to be fully objective, if this is real pain or fake pain, would be if you could crawl into the person's skin and experience what they experience. In this case, the outside observational methods of science, is stuck at subjective; different doctors and different results, whereas, a first person experience is the only objective way.

The philosophy of science limits itself to tangible material things, outside us, that can be addressed objectively, via the senses, and can also be seen the same way by others. Science is not designed, by its own philosophical limitations to address internal reality. What is objective to each person; pain level, will often be called subjective, by those using subjective methods that are not allowed by their own philosophy.

The term subjective can also become subjective; the proof of existence of pain being different due to different Doctors choosing differently. In this case, only the inside data of the patient is objective. It is Schrodinger's cat to the consensus of science, since they cannot feel that pain, from the outside. They can look at output; body language, and even try to read a poker face, but that is not objective science, to an objective phenomena, we all have experienced inside; pain does exist.

If I like steak, this is being objective to my own needs and wants. It may be called subjective, if the whole group does not like steak. But it is really the group being subjective; projection, since they cannot read my mind and heart and feel what I know; I am being objective and true to myself. Instead they will assume the herd is all different, and only they can be objective about me. Science has to no business here making bold claim about things it is not designed, by its own philosophy, to make.

I believe science has made reality quite tangible, with the current philosophy of science. With this platform in place, is time to widen the philosophy of science, to include internal data, that can only be objective to each person, but which is hard to investigate via the current philosophy without playing the, it is subjective, card. Psychology, Philosophy and Religion all attempt to address this internal data since it is part of our collective human internal experience that impacts us as much as outside tangible reality. The depressed person who sees a gray world is more under the spell of internal reality than to objective reality. They can be rational but that alone may not clear their minds. It is real to them in an objective way due the overlap of inner and outer.

Irony is the philosophy of science uses an internal filter to adder external reality. Science can tell the difference since each person has first hand experience of the data to avoid which is personal objective data, which others will find subjective to them. I had to expand the philosophy of science when I ran unconscious mind experiments on myself since I was the scientist; objective and the experiment; internal objective output. This all be needed for the final frontier of science; consciousness and all its outputs that get lumped into reality due to repression caused by the 1/2 baked philosophy of science

 

[firedragon]

Who is describing the univers's creation as ex nihilo as "magic" .. but you.

Go back and read the comment I responded to.

"I don't believe in Magic" .. sayeth the parisioner in reference to God - Godly Powers . all I asked for is a definition of such

But see, how did the universe come about? What do you "believe"?

 

[wellwisher]

The lack of knowledge of science and evolution in this case is intentional.

I believe in objective science and not the science of dice and cards. The latter is better for man made things, whereas natural things tend to be more rational and deterministic. Dice and cards is fine in factories for QC, or marketing to figure out which soft drink is chosen. This latter is an approximation method and is not fully rational. It often attempts to target subjectivity. How about we limit the discussion of evolution to logic and reason without any math hocus pocus allowed? Gambling is considered a sickness or disease if overdone. The black box puts aside reason and allows the roulette wheel to decide fate of evolution. This is not a good science approach unless we go back to alchemy.

I believe in the concept of evolution, but I do not believe in the roulette wheel of fortune approach. The rags to riches approach of fate is very appealing and seductive, but the old fashion way of working systematically to build up is more practical. In that sense, I prefer the more rational approach of Creation; determinism implies cause and effect. One may not like the premises of Creation, but once set, it is rational; determinism. However, I prefer evolution based more on chemical determinism, than Divine will determinism or dice and cards and fate. Divine will does not address all the chemistry, which we will need to make useful goods and services for factories, where dice and cards can be useful; man made.

This is why I take a water centric approach. Water is tangible and is the most researched subject in all of science. I use the Big Guy of all of science as my main variables; no hiding behind speculation. Water was there from day one, and is still the same. Water is like a steady bookend that never changes. This is useful as an integrating variable that also stays constant. It simplifies simulations.

Water and oil; organics, create surface tension of various amounts, causing the water and the organics to separate into pockets, within the continuous water phase. Since the water and the packed organics, still have organic-water surfaces, there is still surface tension. This design creates order; packed, and also targeted surface potential for change on the surface; enzymes and templates.

The living state like cells are fluid; liquid state, and its fluid nature is defined by secondary bonding forces, the strongest of which, in life, is hydrogen bonding. Water is the king of hydrogen bonding, with each water molecule able to form four hydrogen bonds. There are 50 times as many water molecules as all the organic molecules combined. The hydrogen bonding of water is very stabilizing at the secondary bonding level. The hydrogen bonding of the aqueous matrix is the dominant collective secondary force in life and thereby runs the show; orders.

Evolution is connected to the water phase separating organic materials by reenforcing the binding strength of the aqueous matrix. Since the organics still retain surface area, zones remain with higher potential which allows for change; 2nd law increase complexity. The organics are forced to change, while the water stays the same. The water then impose new order, to lower the global and local surface tension, but surface tension remains, and more changes occur, with the organics of life ever evolving towards a steady state goal in the water. Water removes the random since minimum surface tension is a repeatable place for any given state within water.

So many things in cells are lock and key; transport proteins, enzymes and enzymes complexes. The lock and the key, leads to minimal surface tension in water, which removes dice and cards.

 

[shunyadragon]

Say a person goes to a Doctor to get pain killers for their back. They may have genuine pain or they may be pretending, just to get pills. How do you know if their pain actually exists? Some doctors will give the medicine, and others will not. Does that make it virtual pain where it both exists and does not exist like Schrodinger's cat?

Example is bogus in terms of what is considered is "existence. I have a history in medicine enough to understand patients making such claims, Yes at times they can fool some doctors, but modern procedures deal with the patient history and have amore accurate understanding of pain issues, and increasingly limit the use of advanced pain medications for just claims of pain. The problems of addiction are much better understood today, Yes when those addicted increasing fail to get medications legally , because of modern constraints, they go to illegal and unethical sources.

You do not realize that today's medicine has well defined protocol management procedures and an understanding of the psychology involved to understand the addictions and misuse of medications, and can clear greatly reduce the problem in medicine today. I have to deal with theses issues every day in my real lafe relationship to patients and rely on communication with doctors and nurses to resolve the issues,

The above has nothing to do with the Schrodinger's cat philosophical problem in Physics, which you are misrepresenting. Their problem is better understood in physics today.

Theoretically, the only way to be fully objective, if this is real pain or fake pain, would be if you could crawl into the person's skin and experience what they experience. In this case, the outside observational methods of science, is stuck at subjective; different doctors and different results, whereas, a first person experience is the only objective way.

This totally ridiculous based on an intentional lack of knowledge of today's basic human physiology and medicine

The philosophy of science limits itself to tangible material things, outside us, that can be addressed objectively, via the senses, and can also be seen the same way by others. Science is not designed, by its own philosophical limitations to address internal reality. What is objective to each person; pain level, will often be called subjective, by those using subjective methods that are not allowed by their own philosophy.

Still a very confusing lack of knowledge of modern medicine, and again, again, and again . . . not remotely related to my post concerning the issues of What is Existence.

The term subjective can also become subjective; the proof of existence of pain being different due to different Doctors choosing differently. In this case, only the inside data of the patient is objective. It is Schrodinger's cat to the consensus of science, since they cannot feel that pain, from the outside. They can look at output; body language, and even try to read a poker face, but that is not objective science, to an objective phenomena, we all have experienced inside; pain does exist.

Lets; getaway form this ridiculous consideration of 'pain based on your lack of knowledge of modern medicine, and deal with the real definitions and objective considerations of "What is Existence"

Your fog index is too high to be comprehencable.

If I like steak, this is being objective to my own needs and wants.

False it is subjective s to ones personsl needs and tastes.

It may be called subjective, if the whole group does not like steak. But it is really the group being subjective; projection, since they cannot read my mind and heart and feel what I know; I am being objective and true to myself. Instead they will assume the herd is all different, and only they can be objective about me. Science has to no business here making bold claim about things it is not designed, by its own philosophy, to make.

Likes and dislike of food is subjective to individual tastes and cultural preferences, and nothing to with what is considered objective in term os the nature of our existence.

I believe science has made reality quite tangible, with the current philosophy of science. With this platform in place, is time to widen the philosophy of science, to include internal data, that can only be objective to each person,

False, science is NOT based on what is objective to each person.

but which is hard to investigate via the current philosophy without playing the, it is subjective, card. Psychology, Philosophy and Religion all attempt to address this internal data since it is part of our collective human internal experience that impacts us as much as outside tangible reality. The depressed person who sees a gray world is more under the spell of internal reality than to objective reality. They can be rational but that alone may not clear their minds. It is real to them in an objective way due the overlap of inner and outer.

Mor nonsense with a high fog indes avoiding the matter of fact of the nature of our existence and the nature of the objective in Methodological Naturalism. Let's avoid this word salad and deal specifically how we consider the objective and subjective in the real world.

Irony is the philosophy of science uses an internal filter to adder external reality. Science can tell the difference since each person has first hand experience of the data to avoid which is personal objective data, which others will find subjective to them. I had to expand the philosophy of science when I ran unconscious mind experiments on myself since I was the scientist; objective and the experiment; internal objective output. This all be needed for the final frontier of science; consciousness and all its outputs that get lumped into reality due to repression caused by the 1/2 baked philosophy of science

The nature of what is objective and subjective is very well understood, beyond personal preferences and beliefs, which your high fog index of confusing nonsense persists to try and confuse the very basics of how the objective nature of scientific knowledge addresses the nature of the physical world.

The bottom line is Methodological Naturalism is a sound reliable methodological methods to understand the nature of our physical existence, the sciences of evolution, and the basis of modern technology in the REAL world of our existence,

This long wordy post with a high fog index failed to deal with the nature of existence, the objective and subjective. Please avoid using these long posts with a high fog index and respond with rational and coherent posts with references.

Also, .let's get back to the subject of the thread!!!!!

 

[gnostic]

What is your objective evidence for that?

The problem is that the bold one is a norm, not a fact.

in term of this topic regarding to Evolution, then such evidence have to observed, detected, quantified, compared (eg if you have multiple evidence, where you evidence against the others; the more evidence you have, the better it is), tested, and so on. With the evidence you have gathered and data you have acquired from each evidence, you can analyse them, to understand more about what you are researching.

All that, you wouldn’t be able to do with supernatural entities, like spirits, deities, designers, demons, fairies, etc, because each of these are unfalsifiable, as they cannot be observed and tested.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

in term of this topic regarding to Evolution, then such evidence have to observed, detected, quantified, compared (eg if you have multiple evidence, where you evidence against the others; the more evidence you have, the better it is), tested, and so on. With the evidence you have gathered and data you have acquired from each evidence, you can analyse them, to understand more about what you are researching.

All that, you wouldn’t be able to do with supernatural entities, like spirits, deities, designers, demons, fairies, etc, because each of these are unfalsifiable, as they cannot be observed and tested.

Well, yes, if you accept methodological naturalism and the norm for evidence, then yes.