The watchmaker

[Subduction Zone]

What did the life form from? Did it form on its own?
Yeah. so ice forms on its own. Mildew forms on its own.
Fruit forms on its own. Hair forms on its own. Good grief.

Are you asking how aboigenesis occurred? Are you serious? You do realize by moving the goal posts this far that you are admitting defeat in the evolution argument, don't you?

We were discussing evolution. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life after it formed. Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy and one I will not accept. If you admit that life as we know it now is the product of evolution I will gladly change topics.

 

[nPeace]

Are you asking how aboigenesis occurred? Are you serious? You do realize by moving the goal posts this far that you are admitting defeat in the evolution argument, don't you?

We were discussing evolution. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life after it formed. Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy and one I will not accept. If you admit that life as we know it now is the product of evolution I will gladly change topics.

Well don't tell me you are going to talk about DNA - the blueprint in a cell, and don't talk about the origin of the cell - at least.
I'm not the one moving the goal-post. I'm merely trying to keep up with you.

 

[nPeace]

What "beginning"? Please don't accuse others of your sins.

Is there not a beginning of everything?

 

[nPeace]

No, once again, I am willing to properly support my claims. All you have been able to do is to make unsupported assertions. Don't try to claim that I am guilty of the same bad behavior that you are guilty of.

Slow down and think clearly of what you would like to ask of me. I will begin with a question for you:

What evidence do you have for your claims? For any of them.

Define evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there not a beginning of everything?

There might be, there might not be. All we can say right now is that there is a beginning to our universe as we know it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Define evidence.

A good start. Since we are discussing a scientific concept it follows that one should use scientific evidence. And scientific evidence are merely observations, almost always of an empirical nature (though if reliable and repeatable other observations may be added), that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. In other words if one is not willing to play the game properly one cannot even claim to have evidence in the first place. That gets rid of a lot of woo.

 

[nPeace]

There might be, there might not be. All we can say right now is that there is a beginning to our universe as we know it.

Good. So asking who created God is crazy. If God is the beginning, as the Bible describes him, then he has no creator.
In any event, the first cause is just that - The first cause - the beginning.
God has no creator. God is the first cause.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well don't tell me you are going to talk about DNA - the blueprint in a cell, and don't talk about the origin of the cell - at least.
I'm not the one moving the goal-post. I'm merely trying to keep up with you.

Actually you are moving the goal posts. And you are not even close to keeping up. One little aside into abiogenesis, DNA probably did not appear until after life had formed on its own. But enough of that for now. No derails allowed. You are advocating the false "Watchmaker" argument and that deals with evolution, not abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good. So asking who created God is crazy. If God is the beginning, as the Bible describes him, then he has no creator.
In any event, the first cause is just that - The first cause - the beginning.
God has no creator. God is the first cause.

No, it is not. You do not see your logical error. You claimed that the universe needed a creator because it is so complex. By that poor logic your creator needs a creator. You were the one that made a crazy comment, again by your standards, on the origin of the universe. And now you end with a special pleading fallacy.

At least try to be consistent.

 

[nPeace]

A good start. Since we are discussing a scientific concept it follows that one should use scientific evidence. And scientific evidence are merely observations, almost always of an empirical nature (though if reliable and repeatable other observations may be added), that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. In other words if one is not willing to play the game properly one cannot even claim to have evidence in the first place. That gets rid of a lot of woo.

Can you test the supernatural with the scientific method?

Note. You are asking Christian's what evidence they have for God, not what evidence does science have for God. Or am I mistaken?

If I am mistaken, then obviously you are mistaken to think that all evidence must be put in a box marked scientific method.

I have been through this numerous times, and you still insist on a failed argument on what you consider to be a way to test God

Please
Evidence defined.

 

[nPeace]

No, it is not. You do not see your logical error. You claimed that the universe needed a creator because it is so complex. By that poor logic your creator needs a creator. You were the one that made a crazy comment, again by your standards, on the origin of the universe. And now you end with a special pleading fallacy.

At least try to be consistent.

You obviously missed my argument, or you are confusing me with another.
Could you point out exactly where you saw this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you test the supernatural with the scientific method?

Note. You are asking Christian's what evidence they have for God, not what evidence does science have for God. Or am I mistaken?

If I am mistaken, then obviously you are mistaken to think that all evidence must be put in a box marked scientific method.

I have been through this numerous times, and you still insist on a failed argument on what you consider to be a way to test God

Please
Evidence defined.

No, one cannot test the supernatural with the scientific method. But if you make claims about your version of God, such as that the Adam and Eve story is true and have a belief that your God does not lie then those claims can be tested.

And no, I am not asking for evidence for God. There are countless different possible versions of God. I am asking for your evidence that supports your claims. You are clearly mistaken when you think that I am asking for evidence for God.

And I did not say that all evidence needs to be put in a box. You are now making false claims about others again. I said that since evolution is a scientific concept the best evidence used to discuss it would be scientific evidence.

And no, I never ever suggested testing for God. You are the one making the enormous error of assuming that your version of God is the only possible version. That is a mistake that literalists make far too often. God in general cannot be proven or disproven, but specific versions of him can be. Let's go to the Flat Earther's "God". They will make the exact same sort of claims that you do in regards to evolution. Proving that the Earth is round to them "disproves God" since they take the Bible even more literally than you do. They too assume that there is only one possible God and it is their version. Please don't make the same error that Flat Earthers do.

 

[nPeace]

No, one cannot test the supernatural with the scientific method. But if you make claims about your version of God, such as that the Adam and Eve story is true and have a belief that your God does not lie then those claims can be tested.

And no, I am not asking for evidence for God. There are countless different possible versions of God. I am asking for your evidence that supports your claims. You are clearly mistaken when you think that I am asking for evidence for God.

And I did not say that all evidence needs to be put in a box. You are now making false claims about others again. I said that since evolution is a scientific concept the best evidence used to discuss it would be scientific evidence.

And no, I never ever suggested testing for God. You are the one making the enormous error of assuming that your version of God is the only possible version. That is a mistake that literalists make far too often. God in general cannot be proven or disproven, but specific versions of him can be. Let's go to the Flat Earther's "God". They will make the exact same sort of claims that you do in regards to evolution. Proving that the Earth is round to them "disproves God" since they take the Bible even more literally than you do. They too assume that there is only one possible God and it is their version. Please don't make the same error that Flat Earthers do.

It is evident who is moving the goal-post.
So now you are not asking for evidence for God, but evidence for the Bible?
Which is it?
Do you see why I am having a difficult time keeping up with you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is evident who is moving the goal-post.
So now you are not asking for evidence for God, but evidence for the Bible?
Which is it?
Do you see why I am having a difficult time keeping up with you?

Yes, you are. And no, I am not asking for evidence for the Bible. I am asking for evidence for your interpretation of the Bible. We know that the Bible is wrong. For example the flood myth was refuted long before the theory of evolution came along.

And your inability to follow is due to your own self inflicted blindness. You keep assuming that your interpretation of the Bible is a correct one when it is only one of many. Refuting your beliefs does not even necessarily refute the Bible. Refuting your beliefs is not refuting God. Once again you are for all practical purposes acting as a Flat Earther here.

 

[nPeace]

Actually you are moving the goal posts. And you are not even close to keeping up. One little aside into abiogenesis, DNA probably did not appear until after life had formed on its own. But enough of that for now. No derails allowed. You are advocating the false "Watchmaker" argument and that deals with evolution, not abiogenesis.

We're not playing Dodge ball, are we?
First you say

When new life forms through sexual reproduction it does so without a magical being encouraging it to grow. It merely follows the "recipe" given to it by DNA. I hope you understand that much.

Then you say

DNA probably did not appear until after life had formed on its own.

So life forms via DNA, but life formed before DNA.
Are you putting the cart before the donkey or the donkey before the cart?

So I am right then. No evidence shows life to form on its own.
You seem to be confused.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, you are. And no, I am not asking for evidence for the Bible. I am asking for evidence for your interpretation of the Bible. We know that the Bible is wrong. For example the flood myth was refuted long before the theory of evolution came along.

And your inability to follow is due to your own self inflicted blindness. You keep assuming that your interpretation of the Bible is a correct one when it is only one of many. Refuting your beliefs does not even necessarily refute the Bible. Refuting your beliefs is not refuting God. Once again you are for all practical purposes acting as a Flat Earther here.

I think you are trying to detract, or deflect from what we are on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We're not playing Dodge ball, are we?
First you say


Then you say


So life forms via DNA, but life formed before DNA.
Are you putting the cart before the donkey or the donkey before the cart?

So I am right then. No evidence shows life to form on its own.
You seem to be confused.

What? No, you are merely quoting posts that you did not understand. I am not playing dodgeball, if you are willing to admit your error I am willing to discuss aboigenesis.

 

[nPeace]

What? No, you are merely quoting posts that you did not understand. I am not playing dodgeball, if you are willing to admit your error I am willing to discuss aboigenesis.

So what evidence is there that life started on it's own?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are trying to detract, or deflect from what we are on.

Hardly. Once again at best you are projecting. You are making the error of assuming that your personal interpretation is the correct interpretation and refuting that refutes "God". There are countless Christians that do not have a problem with the concept of evolution. They know that the Adam and Eve story paints God as being incompetent and unjust if read literally.

If I do show that your version of Genesis is wrong it does not refute God any more than if you proved to a Flat Earther that the Earth is a sphere (roughly) that you disproved "God" by doing so.

You are making the error of assuming that disproving the Adam and Eve myth disproves God. That is not the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what evidence is there that life started on it's own?

I already told you that in regards to this moving of the goal posts by you that I will not discuss this unless you admit your error in regards to evolution. You want to fly before you can even walk.