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

[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.

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?

The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.

Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.

The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.

The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online

"Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''


I added the bolding for your use and education.


I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.

I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.

 

[abu afak]

Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

See OP and several more.

Note the classic "How did" in Both thread titles.


`

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.
`

God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.

*****SMILE*****

 

[abu afak]

Weatherman2020

Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

God of the gaps.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.
`

View attachment 419199

God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.

*****SMILE*****

You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.
`

View attachment 419199

God exists. His existence is incontrovertible and inevitable.

*****SMILE*****

You mean, unfalsifiable. Which is how we know it is utter nonsense.

Is that why scientists had to steal the creation story?

Roman Catholic Version
Genesis Chapter 1:1-10

1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.
6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.
9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.

Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online

1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. 3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.

www.catholic.org

Because it's unfalsifiable.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why haven't dolphin "evolved" to build telescopes? Why hasn't life on Jupiter or Venus evolved to send us radio broadcast?

This evolution stuff sure is finnicky

 

[ChemEngineer]

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

Profound truth.

I have just modified Science of the Bible to include Psalm 19:2

Psalms 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

For centuries, astronomers have studied planets and stars, which have spoken eloquent volumes of knowledge and even mathematics. Sir Isaac Newton invented the calculus in order to understand and describe elliptical orbits of planets. No less a scientist than Carl Sagan said, “Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still.” (Cosmos, page 93) When a person of faith expresses amazement, they are ridiculed for expressing “The Argument From Incredulity.” When agnostic Sagan expresses the very same “argument,” other non-believers never ever ridicule or mock it. Such hypocrisy is unscientific and unintelligent.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Why haven't dolphin "evolved" to build telescopes? Why hasn't life on Jupiter or Venus evolved to send us radio broadcast?

This evolution stuff sure is finnicky

I have half of an answer.
Jupiter is a gas giant. It has no solid surface. The temperature is -190 Fahrenheit, much too cold for anything to survive.
The temperature of Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, far hotter than any known life can exist on earth.

Biologists pretend to have an answer for everything, however simplistic and nonsensical it may be. So why didn't "life" of some form alien to us "evolve" on Jupiter and Venus?

 

[Hollie]

Why haven't dolphin "evolved" to build telescopes? Why hasn't life on Jupiter or Venus evolved to send us radio broadcast?

This evolution stuff sure is finnicky

I have half of an answer.
Jupiter is a gas giant. It has no solid surface. The temperature is -190 Fahrenheit, much too cold for anything to survive.
The temperature of Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, far hotter than any known life can exist on earth.

Biologists pretend to have an answer for everything, however simplistic and nonsensical it may be. So why didn't "life" of some form alien to us "evolve" on Jupiter and Venus?

The only life we know anything about is the biological life on this planet. Because you don’t know, there are four basic elements common to all living organisms. You can look those up. As opposed to those evilutionist atheist scientists searching for life off of this planet, why aren’t the fundie ID’iot creation ministries looking to address your half-assed answer?

Biologists pretend to have an answer for everything? I would be surprised if you knew any biologists. Your nonsense claim is often described as a "strawman argument". Because you don't know, a strawman argument is a misrepresentation of someone's position. The misrepresentation is often a ludicrous misstatement of your opponent's argument or a gross generalization, absent fact. This, of course, is a tactic used when your own position is not supported. It means you can spend your energy toward what is a ridiculous argument that your opponent never proposed, instead of addressing the actual issue at hand.

 

[abu afak]

I have half of an answer.
Jupiter is a gas giant. It has no solid surface. The temperature is -190 Fahrenheit, much too cold for anything to survive.
The temperature of Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, far hotter than any known life can exist on earth.

Biologists pretend to have an answer for everything, however simplistic and nonsensical it may be. So why didn't "life" of some form alien to us "evolve" on Jupiter and Venus?

Why did "god" make 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe uninhabitable to "his premier creation".. man?

And it's a chaotic unordered mess too.
Galaxies are colliding, Stars exploding.
These events, if life exists within many light years them, kill billions of beings.
Both Will happen to earth.

`

 

[james bond]

Both Will happen to earth.

What evidence do you have for your claim?

 

[abu afak]

Both Will happen to earth.

What evidence do you have for your claim?

1. ALL stars end that way.

2. adromeda and mily way will collide - Google Search
and there are many galaxies currently in collision in the sky.
I guess you never look at astronomy pix.

`

 

[Anomalism]

Why haven't dolphin "evolved" to build telescopes? Why hasn't life on Jupiter or Venus evolved to send us radio broadcast?

This evolution stuff sure is finnicky

Evolution isn't always on a path to extreme intelligence. People that don't believe evolution seem to not really understand it either. It's like y'all think we are the pinnacle and everything is fighting to be like us; that's not really accurate.

 

[james bond]

Both Will happen to earth.

What evidence do you have for your claim?

1. ALL stars end that way.

2. adromeda and mily way will collide - Google Search
and there are many galaxies currently in collision in the sky.
I guess you never look at astronomy pix.

`

How can you say all stars will end that way? With what science do you base this on?

On my side, I have to have specific things happen before it's over. One famous creation scientist thought it would happen in 2060, but not all the prophecies have happened yet. God isn't a liar so these things must happen.

I don't want to read the wiki you linked. Can you explain why YOU believe this will happen?

 

[james bond]

Evolution isn't always on a path to extreme intelligence. People that don't believe evolution seem to not really understand it either. It's like y'all think we are the pinnacle and everything is fighting to be like us; that's not really accurate.

I think the truth is always the path to extreme intelligence. Jesus supposedly never told a lie, so when I read what he said it just blows my mind. For example, He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female..." Matthew 19:8

People are confused about the sexes today. Yet, there are only two. The rest of it is human and can be wrong.

The truth is our science are based on the top ideas of human beings who do not know everything and who often make mistakes. That’s why science textbooks change from time to time, as people discover new evidence and realize that they were wrong about certain things.

 

[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?

The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.

Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.

The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.

The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online

"Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''


I added the bolding for your use and education.


I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.

I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.

From your Confessions of a Darwinist link... " I had been shocked to find very little change in the 5 million years or so of history recorded by the main lineage of my Devonian trilobite."

Show evidence of 5 million years that there was "very little change."

 

[ChemEngineer]

The same anti-science which permeates Darwinism has been extended by godless Leftists (but I repeat myself).

When Leftists need it, Darwinism is very fast. When they don't, Darwinism is very, very slow or non-existent.

"Global warming" has been contradicted so many times that they had to change their moniker to "climate change". That covers everything, cold, hot, hurricanes, tornadoes, and probably acne. When "global warming" is contradicted by observation and experiment, Leftists swear you "don't understand it," in much the same way they make claims of your intellectual inferiority regarding Darwinism. Bear in mind these are the same Leftists who don't know which bathroom to use, male or female. These are the same Leftists who go giddy over socialism, which murdered and starved 100,000,000 innocent humans and still counting. These are the same Leftists who promote and champion the butchery of innocent unborn babies worldwide, 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 PER YEAR! (www.worldometers.info)

How do they justify their butchery and insanity in their own minds? The same way the Waffen SS Nazis did. They're superior to you in every way. Pride is evil and it is the original sin. It's not about me. My intelligence is immaterial. I'm not bragging about my intelligence. It is the Leftists, like the Waffen SS, who do so, constantly.

 

[Hollie]

The same anti-science which permeates Darwinism has been extended by godless Leftists (but I repeat myself).

When Leftists need it, Darwinism is very fast. When they don't, Darwinism is very, very slow or non-existent.

"Global warming" has been contradicted so many times that they had to change their moniker to "climate change". That covers everything, cold, hot, hurricanes, tornadoes, and probably acne. When "global warming" is contradicted by observation and experiment, Leftists swear you "don't understand it," in much the same way they make claims of your intellectual inferiority regarding Darwinism. Bear in mind these are the same Leftists who don't know which bathroom to use, male or female. These are the same Leftists who go giddy over socialism, which murdered and starved 100,000,000 innocent humans and still counting. These are the same Leftists who promote and champion the butchery of innocent unborn babies worldwide, 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 PER YEAR! (www.worldometers.info)

How do they justify their butchery and insanity in their own minds? The same way the Waffen SS Nazis did. They're superior to you in every way. Pride is evil and it is the original sin. It's not about me. My intelligence is immaterial. I'm not bragging about my intelligence. It is the Leftists, like the Waffen SS, who do so, constantly.

Angry ID’iot creationers typically use the term “Darwinism” as a slur against the entirety of science because, of course, science conflicts with religious tales and fables. It’s also typical (stereotypical) that ID’iot creationers will place “Darwinism” and Nazi Germany and attempt to link the two. What the ID’iot creationers fail to understand is that Nazi ideology was closely aligned with Christianity. The SS had the inscription Gott mit uns (god is with us), on their belt buckles.

Lovely, lovely folks.

 

[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.

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?

The truth doesn't hurt at all. You should learn to recognize it.

Once again, you dump a long cut and paste from a religioners' blog. As is typical for creationer ''quotes'', the creationer intends to misrepresent, alter and parse the ''quote'' to further their dishonest agenda.

The edited and parsed ''quote'' that misrepresents what Niles Eldridge wrote is one I'm familiar with and recognized it right away as it gets copied and pasted among the dishonest creationer charlatans. They have no issue at all with the dishonest tactic of editing and parsing ''quotes''.

The fuller context is here: Confessions of a Darwinist | VQR Online

"Modern Darwin scholarship tends to emphasize the importance of taxonomic experts back in England, whose analyses of Darwin’s specimens (including ones he sent home while still on the voyage) for the most part were rendered after Darwin returned. The classic example is, of course, “Darwin’s finches”: it was the ornithologist John Gould who figured out that there are thirteen species of a single related group of little brown, greenish, and black birds displaying an interesting array of beak sizes and shapes that, taken with their distribution patterns on the various islands, make a compelling case for evolution. This came long after Darwin sailed away from the Galápagos, having paid these birds hardly any heed. Indeed, he learned of Gould’s results only when he reached home.''


I added the bolding for your use and education.


I should point out that you share the dishonest tactic of ''quote mining'' that is practiced by several of the angry religioners who spam the forum with altered, edited and parsed ''quotes''.

I wouldn't suggest to you that the truth hurts because the angry religioners have no regard for the truth.

From your Confessions of a Darwinist link... " I had been shocked to find very little change in the 5 million years or so of history recorded by the main lineage of my Devonian trilobite."

Show evidence of 5 million years that there was "very little change."

The evidence for very little change would be the available evidence for very little change.

You can start here:Why did trilobites go extinct?

Could you possibly link us to something in the all-knowing, all-seeing Bibles to give us some historical (maybe hysterical) data?