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

[LuckyDuck]

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 Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Yeah. The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

3 Scientists Awarded Nobel Prize In Physics For Discoveries Related To Black Holes

The prize goes to Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez. Ghez says she hopes it will inspire young people, and particularly women, to pursue careers in science.

www.npr.org

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

So there seems to be less dark matter around sag a than was anticipated. This is because dark matter, which is composed of infinitely dense blue runes, is escaping from the supermassive black hole much faster than the speed of light. These blue runes don't lose their momentum until they are outside of the milky way. Then they orbit around our galaxy, becoming what we humans observe as dark matter.

I believe this confirms my theory about the three laws of physics: relativity, quantum and runes. You can send my check to...

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Perhaps the waves of red runes--infinitely flat runes also known as antigravity--are messing with the tidal waves of gravity around sag a. These are the same red runes that are allowing the dark matter escaping from sag a to move faster than the speed of light. This might explain the phenomena of objects close to sag a not being stretched and unstretched as much as anticipated.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

The woman physicist who won the nobel and was on scifri explained it very well, i think. Thank u

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

I don't know why there are less old stars around sag a than anticipated

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

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 Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Yeah. The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

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 Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalisgtic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Yeah. The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.

That simulation study was announced yesterday on npr. Just in time to link it to your post. Coincidence?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

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 Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Yeah. The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.

Quantum and relativity are essentially two distinct laws of physics yet they seem to work together well enough for us to exist. Coincidence? I guess that is a gap that has not been filled yet

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

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 Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Yeah. The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.

What if we fill in the gaps with god-like aliens?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

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 Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Yeah. The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.

Math fills one gap

The letter i - math word definition

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

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 Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Yeah. The problem with the God of the Gaps, is that because we don't yet have an answer for absolutely everything, there's always someone that just says, "well then, it must be a God that did it," dumbing things down to a simplistic childish solution.

Imagine

The letter i - math word definition

.

 

[james bond]

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics. I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed. This would allow for their singularity haha.

ETA: It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.

It's not possible for space and time to exist eternally without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which we do not see nor could we see because there would be no life in a universe which has reached thermal equilibrium. Space and time are created from the existence of energy and matter. Energy and matter is not and will never be unchanging. Energy and matter are constantly seeking equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium is that final state of energy and matter as time approaches infinity.

One has to always preclude something if there is not space and time. For example, if we are discussing big bang, then we have to assume it happened and things were in place for it to happen. You can't have one without the other. With time and space being eternal, everything was in equilibrium.

No. One must always preclude no thing is there. God is no thing.

If everything was nothing, then I would agree. God would have had to exist. We are discussing the science of atheism, so they claim space and time was eternal. Otherwise, there could not have been singularity nor a big bang. It's assumption is evolution of the gaps argument.

The problem I have with the big bang then would be its cosmic expansion. That violated the laws of physics.

 

[james bond]

One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life. Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people. The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum. He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.

First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own. It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.

One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life. They have not been able to do it. They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe. It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang. Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.

Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters. Life could not have happened by chance.



Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.

 

[Hollie]

One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life. Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people. The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum. He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.

First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own. It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.

One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life. They have not been able to do it. They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe. It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang. Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.

Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters. Life could not have happened by chance.



Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.

Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,

 

[james bond]

One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life. Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people. The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum. He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.

First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own. It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.

One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life. They have not been able to do it. They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe. It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang. Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.

Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters. Life could not have happened by chance.



Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.

Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,

Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.

Fine tuning theory is very powerful. It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it. Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now. I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning. If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God. Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.

 

[Hollie]

One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life. Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people. The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum. He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.

First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own. It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.

One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life. They have not been able to do it. They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe. It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang. Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.

Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters. Life could not have happened by chance.



Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.

Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,

Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.

Fine tuning theory is very powerful. It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it. Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now. I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning. If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God. Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.

There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.

The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.

The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.

Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.

 

[james bond]

One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life. Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people. The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum. He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.

First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own. It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.

One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life. They have not been able to do it. They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe. It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang. Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.

Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters. Life could not have happened by chance.



Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.

Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,

Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.

Fine tuning theory is very powerful. It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it. Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now. I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning. If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God. Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.

There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.

The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.

The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.

Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.

It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing. Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.

"The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.

Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the HMS Beagle started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."

Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now

As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.

www.darwinthenandnow.com

 

[Hollie]

One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life. Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people. The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum. He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.

First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own. It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.

One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life. They have not been able to do it. They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe. It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang. Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.

Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters. Life could not have happened by chance.



Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.

Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,

Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.

Fine tuning theory is very powerful. It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it. Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now. I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning. If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God. Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.

There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.

The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.

The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.

Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.

It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing. Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.

"The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.

Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the HMS Beagle started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."

Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now

As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.

www.darwinthenandnow.com

How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.

When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.

 

[james bond]

One of the biggest problems with evolution is no one has explained the origin of life. Thus, we have stupid threads like this by stupid people. The OP is one of the dumbest people on this forum. He can't answer simple science questions nor problems.

First, God of the Gaps was what creation scientists said to each other before the 1850s to not use God as when they could not explain something or a calculation on their own. It is a good warning to heed and not use God to explain one's science nor variations in their calculations.

One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is to explain the origin of life. They have not been able to do it. They have not been able to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument as well as explain the fine tuning parameters of the universe. It was the atheist scientists who discovered the parameters when studying the big bang. Since it helped their opposition, they have since dropped the parameters from their text books.

Here is an explanation of the fine tuning parameters. Life could not have happened by chance.



Kalam's Cosmological Argument is the best argument put forth to explain the origin of the universe.

Biological evolution (Darwinian theory), does not address the origins of life. It's a common tactic of creationers to attempt to link the origins of life and evolution. That is just an attempt to appeal to ignorance.

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gods collaborated on ''fine tuning'' the physical elements of the universe. The universe is a harsh and violent place, the very opposite of a place ''fine tuned'' by any gods,

Well, I've claimed the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. Evolution claims stromatolites as first life and big bang.

Fine tuning theory is very powerful. It explains why the atheist scientists who discovered them led by Stephen Hawking all ran away and ignored it. Anyway, it's nice to see the multiverse hypothesis discarded now. I think we're still arguing about whether space and time had a beginning. If space and time had a beginning, then that would be evidence for God. Thus, I just named four things to your none (evidence for evolution) as evidence for God.

There is nothing unique about your unverified, unreliable and utterly unsupported claims to one version of gods. Your claims are mere pedestrian versions of claims that compete with others making similar claims to competing versions of gods.

The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about the “Big Bang”. Your creation ministries should make some attempt to become familiar with science terms. Such buffoonish comments give no one any confidence that you have any even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.

The silly fine tuning claim is similarly unverified, unreliable, utterly unsupported and worse, utterly contradictory to the available evidence.

Space and time beginning is not evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods.

It's obvious I have science on my side while you just admitted the science of atheism has nothing. Even Darwin's finches that we've heard so much about may have been ignored by Darwin.

"The fate of Charles Darwin’s finches is a fascinating saga. Far from England on the equator in the Pacific Ocean lying more than 800 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, the finches Darwin captured on the Galapagos Islands (pictured left), except for one tag, are now missing. As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin’s finches belies their current iconic status.

Reaching the Galápagos Islands on September 15, 1835, more than four years after leaving England, the HMS Beagle started preparations to set sail from the island just five weeks later. Darwin had collected many different types of specimens during that time, some weighing up to 500 pounds each. Although typically an avid collector and note-taker, Darwin surprisingly did not record the number of finches collected nor the number loaded onto the ship."

Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now

As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.

www.darwinthenandnow.com

How do you have science on your side? There's nothing in that long cut and paste from a religious blog that has anything to do with science.

When did finches become ''the most controversial birds in modern history,'' The religioner who wrote that nonsense is simply screeching out an agenda.

Darwin murdered the poor birds and now they're all missing except for one tag. Shabby way to treat them.

Here's an article from an atheist and pro homosexual website -- How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution. They confirm it wasn't Darwin who studied them, which was my point, but they're called "Darwin's finches" when he really didn't give diddly.

"Finches and Evolution

The HMS Beagle continued to sail on to as far away lands as New Zealand before returning to England in 1836. It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common but different than the new Galapagos species."

Atheist and pro homosexual website link

How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution

Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.

www.thoughtco.com

Such BS from the evolution crowd. I think it's typical of their lies and propping up their stooge Darwin!!!

++++++++

From the careful and more accurate website you call a "Religioner" one,

"Evaluating the Evidence

While the whereabouts of the birds are unknown today, the saga speaks volumes for the perceived importance of the birds during Darwin’s lifetime – they weren’t. According to Frank Sulloway of the University of California, Berkeley, only one of the original finch tags is even known to still be in existence today.

Only Gould’s vague evidence, at best, supports the once-popular argument that the Galapagos finches provided Darwin scientific evidence for his theory. Importantly, though, Darwin never argued that the finches delivered supporting evidence for his theory. The iconic status of the Darwin finch saga, ironically, cannot be attributed to Darwin. As Sulloway explains –

“Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.”

Niles Eldredge, the curator for the American Museum of Natural History, notes that interest in the finches “came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos [in 1835], having paid these birds hardly any heed.” Erin Blakemore, writing for the Smithsonian Magazine, points- out –

“The story that those birds inspired the theory of evolution has long been doubted.”

While the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge has the largest inventory of specimens collected by Darwin, yet there is not a single Darwin finch in their collection.

The British Museum has four mockingbird specimens thought to have been collected by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands; however, the final fate of the nineteen specimens they acquired in 1855 is unknown. Only the one identification label, once on a finch, remains as the only evidence today."

Fate of Darwin's Finches • Darwin, Then and Now

As one of the most controversial birds in modern history, the fate of Darwin's finches belies their current iconic status.

www.darwinthenandnow.com

Such hypocrisy by the evolutionists!

The truth hurts doesn't it?