Blowing Up Darwin

[Sherlock Holmes]

That was a poor sidestep. I can have trust that repeated experimentation during peer review can objectively demonstrate the veracity of a scientific theory.

What experimentation can be done to objectively assess the veracity of your supernatural gods?

What claims have I made about God?

 

[abu afak]

Does one need to believe anything in order to undertake scientific investigations?

That has no bearing on the role played by beliefs when studying nature, it's a strawman argument.

No. not necessarily
One, initially, may just want to make sense of one's observations,
This is true of many/Most science ideas/later hypotheses/later Theories as the reason for the observation yields further evidence... or not.
ie, looking at the skies (or plants, animals) one may notice something and seek to find out what it means, what kind of body, how far away, etc.

Your attempt to make this equivalent with ie, "Believing" in the Indoctrination of Religions/Gods is Idiotic. (like PoliticalChic)
Faith is belief withOut evidence.

False equivalence (I call this one "The Everything is just a Belief Fallacy") is a standard of Weak minded people.
You try and be so semantic/logical but you really aren't near smart enough to debate someone who has an IQ well into the 3 digits.
`

 

[Leo123]

It’s not an insult to require you to support your argument.

My ‘argument’ is, and always was, that no one has performed an experiment where a living cell emerged from a ‘soup’ of only elements. Your linked example used already created genes which I already told you.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No. not necessarily
One, initially, may just want to make sense of one's observations,

So there's a belief that observations will "make sense" the belief that somehow someway the results will reveal a mathematical orderliness, predictability.

This is true of many/Most science ideas/later hypotheses/later Theories as the reason for the observation yields further evidence... or not.
ie, looking at the skies one may notice something and seek to find out what it means, what kind of body, how far away, etc.

Your attempt to make this equal with "Believing" in the Indoctrination of Religions/Gods is Idiotic. (like PoliticalChic)
Faith is belief withOut evidence.

In which post did you see me attempting to do that?

False equivalence (I call this one "The Everything is just a Belief Fallacy") is a standard of Weak minded people.
You try and be so semantic/logical but you really aren't smart enough to debate someone who has an IQ well into the 3 digits.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

My ‘argument’ is, and always was, that no one has performed an experiment where a living cell emerged from a ‘soup’ of only elements. Your linked example used already created genes which I already told you.

What you say here is a very profound and simple truth. The abiogenesis advocates have faith that given enough time life will arise unaided from inert non living molecules. As you point out they cannot actually demonstrate it but they believe it to the point of declaring it an unquestionable truth - aka dogma.

 

[Hollie]

My ‘argument’ is, and always was, that no one has performed an experiment where a living cell emerged from a ‘soup’ of only elements. Your linked example used already created genes which I already told you.

your argument is that a supernatural entity created all of existence by supernatural means. Yet, you are unable to offer any explanation for your claims to supernaturalism.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hollie abu afak given that the law of biogenesis is as empirically well supported as any law in the sciences, why do you believe it's not actually a law when you'd never express doubt over any other empirically supported law?

 

[abu afak]

So there's a belief that observations will "make sense" the belief that somehow someway the results will reveal an orderliness, predictability.

In which post did you see me attempting to do that?

No, there's curiosity. (a sign of intelligence).
Belief beyond the observation/s is justified by Evidence.. Or Not. (ie, 160 Years of Evo Evidence)
You can't play facts with me and you can't play semantics. The latter your sole failed reason for being here: semantic heel nipping/Being a jerk with No factual contribution, just a prikk.
Too bad you run into me every now and then if I even care to bother with your empty BS and not just use the justifiable 'funny' feedback button.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, there's curiosity. (a sign of intelligence).

So you don't believe that nature is orderly and mathematically predictable and that there are laws to be discovered? forgive me, I thought you did.

Belief beyond the observation/s is justified by Evidence.. or not.
You can't play facts with me and you can't play semantics. The latter your sole failed reason for being here: semantic heel nipping/Being a jerk with No factual contribution, just a prikk.
Too bad you run into me every now then if I even care to bother with your empty BS and not just usee the justifiable3 'funny' feedback button.

 

[abu afak]

So you don't believe that nature is orderly and mathematically predictable and that there are laws to be discovered? I thought you did.

I said sometimes the ideal/Beleif (then hypothesis, then theory) IS justified .. OR NOT.
You are trying to Mischaracterize what I said.

I further said Not all "Beliefs" are the same evidentiary-wise. Pointing out your False attempt at equivalence with religion/s.

You simply are not smart enough to play honest debate.. and worse you have No Fact game, just semantic chicanery attempts which don't work on 3 digit IQs.
`

 

[Hollie]

What you say here is a very profound and simple truth. The abiogenesis advocates have faith that given enough time life will arise unaided from inert non living molecules. As you point out they cannot actually demonstrate it but they believe it to the point of declaring it an unquestionable truth - aka dogma.

A recurring theme in the hyper-religious / antievolution dogma is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This nonsense series of falsehoods fails, because evolution (that is, common descent with modification) occurs whether or not life arose by chance or purely natural conditions. There is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out by science and in fact, experimentation is ongoing.

On the other hand the insistence that “the gods did it” is purely a religious claims. Indoctrination to religious dogma is not evidence of anything.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I said sometimes the ideal/Beleif (then hypothesis, then theory) IS justified .. OR NOT.
You are trying to Mischaracterize what I said.

You simply are not smart enough to play honest debate.. and worse you have No Fact game, just semantic chicanery attempts which don't work on 3 digit IQs.

How is

"I believe the universe is orderly and mathematically predictable"

fundamentally different to

"I believe there's a reason for the existence of an intelligible universe"?

You believe the universe to be intelligible but don't believe there's a reason for it being here? what an odd philosophy.

 

[abu afak]

How is

"I believe the universe is orderly and mathematically predictable"

fundamentally different to

"I believe there's a reason for the existence of an intelligible universe"?

You believe the universe to be intelligible but don't believe there's a reason for it being here?

Huh?
Incoherent.
And you didn't address what I did say about "Belief." (idea, hypothesis, theory, evidence, etc)
`

 

[Leo123]

So there's a belief that observations will "make sense" the belief that somehow someway the results will reveal a mathematical orderliness, predictability.

In which post did you see me attempting to do that?

These loons think that just mentioning intelligent design is some kind of code

your argument is that a supernatural entity created all of existence by supernatural means. Yet, you are unable to offer any explanation for your claims to supernaturalism.

I never said that. Your argument is that a living cell can be synthesized but your citation did not support your belief. I never mentioned supernaruralism.

 

[Hollie]

These loons think that just mentioning intelligent design is some kind of code

I never said that. Your argument is that a living cell can be synthesized but your citation did not support your belief. I never mentioned supernaruralism.

“Intelligent design” is code. It’s code for religious claims that are completely absent support. I D is entirely dependent on appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

The citation did, in fact, support that scientists were able to synthesize a simple cell.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It meant exactly as to what it says and spells - Go and read your desert kiddo books - it suits you much better.

You got a reading problem? - no wonder after all them desert kiddo books beholding those lovely colored pictures, out of which you take your wisdom from.

I knew all I had to know when you signed your name ‘Jenius.’

Has Jodie Foster responded to your notes?

 

[abu afak]

... Where did the very first living cell come from? So far with all your lengthy posts you still have No answer.

That's Correct!
And Neither do you!
And Darwin (THE OP TOPIC) only deals the Evidence for life's subsequent evolution, NOT Abiogenesis.

And does not logically Justify Your Constant/Fallacious God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy inference.

"We don't know/Know Yet" is the most rational answer.
No need to create a new Fire, Lightening, or Fertility god for what we don't know/know yet.

God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")​

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner. If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...


Leo123, is a FRAUD who can Never answer me, just reposts the same idiotic OFF Topic challenge/god inference.
`

 

[Robert W]

And Darwin (THE OP TOPIC) only deals the Evidence for life's subsequent evolution, NOT Abiogenesis.

How does an ant change into a spider?

 

[Hollie]

How does an ant change into a spider?

Are you claiming that has happened? Was it done by the gods?

 

[abu afak]

How does an ant change into a spider?

You're literally WAY too stupid to debate.
(loved your Spectacular Idiocy:... 'boats are what's raising sea level'... unintentional joke OP.)
You have an IQ in the 80s and can't debate anything with anyone.
`