Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your belief boils down to saying "if it can't be proven scientifically, then God did it."
That's an example of non-logic.
Why is that irrational? Just because we know or don't know how it happened does not mean that God did not do it. Our scientific knowledge of the how is irrelevant to the who and why.
God of the gaps fallacy.
Why is that irrational? Just because we know or don't know how it happened does not mean that God did not do it. Our scientific knowledge of the how is irrelevant to the who and why.
God of the gaps fallacy.
There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy and never has been. Rather, there's the materialist's fallacy of confounding the distinction between mechanism and agency.
In the meantime, bripat9643's allegation regarding my supposed logical error is still false. Indeed, his allegation is a non sequitur, just as JimBowie's follow up is.
Look here, guys. The materialist merely assumes that all of natural history is an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. That's his metaphysical presupposition for science, and it is no more subject to scientific falsification than is my metaphysical presupposition for science.
That is an incontrovertible fact, a fact that flies right over the head of the atheist, not the stuff of any logical error.
And the materialist is stuck with abiogenesis and evolution to explain the origin of life and its speciation.
An unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect of an evolutionary kind, from the cosmological to the astronomical to the chemical to the biological . . . or a history of creative events and extinctions, i.e., thereafter subject to the dictates of the laws of nature? The evidence would in fact look the same despite the ill-considered and unimaginative claims of the materialist.
Jim, evolution is an unwarranted compromise. It's not in scripture. Certainly, abiogenesis is a fantasy, and Darwinism cannot as satisfactorily account for the fossil record as creationism. Further, the allegedly best supports for the feverish and mathematically improbable claims of evolution, vestigial organs and endogenous retro viruses, the premature and underlying assumptions thereof, are unraveling in the face of recent discoveries.
So to be clear, you are a "god of the gaps" atheist. Got it.
So what is the God in the gaps fallacy precisely according to you?
What it always has been, an attempt to claim God in every gap in our knowledge. Example, "We don't know how life began - therefore God".
So was there any point to this thread, other than to set up a strawman about how awful atheists are because they fail to care about what certain people demand they care about?
Are you sober?
I'll take that as a "no", as will most other people. Your only goal here was to justify hating atheists, but you weren't honest enough to admit it. That dishonesty destroys all your claims of the moral superiority of your system. Essentially, your bad behavior disproves your own point more thoroughly than any of us could have.
There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.
There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.
There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.
There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.
Define 'directly related', ass hat.
The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.
They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.
The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.
They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.
There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.
Define 'directly related', ass hat.
Do you realize how much DNA you share with a banana? It's around 50 percent.
Do you realize how much DNA you share with other mammals? The percentage (depending on the species) is much higher, up around 95 percent.
There is currently a show on FOX network that illustrates a lot of those points quite nicely. It was originally started under Carl Sagan, and is now hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it's called Nova.
You should watch it sometime.
There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.
Define 'directly related', ass hat.
Do you realize how much DNA you share with a banana? It's around 50 percent.
Do you realize how much DNA you share with other mammals? The percentage (depending on the species) is much higher, up around 95 percent.
There is currently a show on FOX network that illustrates a lot of those points quite nicely. It was originally started under Carl Sagan, and is now hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it's called Nova.
You should watch it sometime.
Define 'directly related', ass hat.
Do you realize how much DNA you share with a banana? It's around 50 percent.
Do you realize how much DNA you share with other mammals? The percentage (depending on the species) is much higher, up around 95 percent.
There is currently a show on FOX network that illustrates a lot of those points quite nicely. It was originally started under Carl Sagan, and is now hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it's called Nova.
You should watch it sometime.
Actually, it is called Cosmos. But you are right, we share a lot of our DNA with many other species. And our genome is far from the most diverse. The genome of the Southern Pine tree is 7 times larger than our own. He should think about that next time he chops some firewood.
The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.
They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.
Actually, they have, you just have to be willing to hear the truth.
Simple amino acids can be formed when various chemicals come into contact with each other, but what turns them into DNA and RNA is electricity (which occurs naturally in clouds from the ions rubbing against one another).
Form DNA and RNA, and you get life.
BTW..................we are told in the Bible that we were made in the image of God. Human civilization has evolved quite a bit (and so has the technology) since those times. We went from being hunter/gatherers to farmers, to cities and so on.
Shoot................look at the way warfare has evolved over the ages.
Never mind how cities and other works of man have evolved.
If we're created in God's image, and we are able to evolve, then why can't God have made evolution in living things possible?
The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.
They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.
Actually, they have, you just have to be willing to hear the truth.
Simple amino acids can be formed when various chemicals come into contact with each other, but what turns them into DNA and RNA is electricity (which occurs naturally in clouds from the ions rubbing against one another).
Form DNA and RNA, and you get life.
But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.
Actually, they have, you just have to be willing to hear the truth.
Simple amino acids can be formed when various chemicals come into contact with each other, but what turns them into DNA and RNA is electricity (which occurs naturally in clouds from the ions rubbing against one another).
Form DNA and RNA, and you get life.
But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.
Actually, they have.
Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own
First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds.
The teamled by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biologythen evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.
This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and againartificial heredity.
Last, the team determined that HNA, one of the six XNA polymers, could respond to selective pressure in a test tube.
All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalistsit's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.
But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.
But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.
Actually, they have.
Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own
From your own article:
So they have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds.
The teamled by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biologythen evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.
This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and againartificial heredity.
Last, the team determined that HNA, one of the six XNA polymers, could respond to selective pressure in a test tube.
And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.
And more.....
Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution, lol.All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalistsit's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.
But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.
That more supports my claims of guided evolution than some godless model that just fell together by trial and error.
From your own article:
So they have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.
And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.
And more.....
Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution, lol.All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalistsit's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.
But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.
That more supports my claims of guided evolution than some godless model that just fell together by trial and error.
Bwhahahahahahahaha!!! OMG! EPIC FAIL!
I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!Jimbo said:But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.
Dipshit, when you claimed:
I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!Jimbo said:But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.
So to be clear, you are a "god of the gaps" atheist. Got it.
So what is the God in the gaps fallacy precisely according to you?
What it always has been, an attempt to claim God in every gap in our knowledge. Example, "We don't know how life began - therefore God".
