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

[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."

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?

Oh, I see. 5 million years isn't anything so evos would expect little change LOL.

The clue to how the trilobites became extinct is found in where they lived and where they were found.

TRILOBITE FOSSILS - Creation Engineering Concepts

All fossil images and descriptions ©2017 all rights reserved. Contact us for permission policy. Trilobite Paralejuris Description: The Paralejuris fossil trilobite is 3″ long X 1 1/4″ wide X 9/16″ thick. The matrix is 3 1/2″ wide X 4 1/8″ long X 1″ thick. The head shield is convex and nearly...

www.creationengineeringconcepts.org

 

[Ringtone]

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.
`

Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the atheist in the gaps fallacy that there exists no evidence for God's existence. The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak. Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.

 

[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?

Oh, I see. 5 million years isn't anything so evos would expect little change LOL.

The clue to how the trilobites became extinct is found in where they lived and where they were found.

TRILOBITE FOSSILS - Creation Engineering Concepts

All fossil images and descriptions ©2017 all rights reserved. Contact us for permission policy. Trilobite Paralejuris Description: The Paralejuris fossil trilobite is 3″ long X 1 1/4″ wide X 9/16″ thick. The matrix is 3 1/2″ wide X 4 1/8″ long X 1″ thick. The head shield is convex and nearly...

www.creationengineeringconcepts.org

How would a religo resolve a timeframe of 5 million years?

The ID’iot creation ministries wouldn’t have been able to explain the concepts to you but large scale evolutionary change would not necessarily occur without changes to environment and other external forces.

You make a mistake limiting your exposure to science with ID’iot creation ministries. As I demonstrated earlier, these charlatans are purveyors of fraud and deceit as was the case with the edited and parsed “quote” by Niles Eldridge you posted.

I couldn’t help but notice that the ID’iot creation ministry you used in your post identifies something they call “Biblical Paleontology” as opposed to Paleontology which is absent supernaturalism.

I couldn’t help but notice that a book he wrote is described as: “In the Creation Dialogues, creation scientist J.D. Mitchell scientifically and biblically refutes naturalistic philosophy and explains the errors that result from attempts by Christians to accept atheistic and deistic ideas into their faith and worldview.”

I couldn’t help but notice there is no attempt by Mitchell to christian’splain that he is not willing to refute the science data for biological evolution so he stands in the corner refuting something he calls “naturalistic philosophy”.

Now that’s pretty darn funny.

 

[Hollie]

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.
`

Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the atheist in the gaps fallacy that there exists no evidence for God's existence. The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak. Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.

^^^ Behold, they’re so cute when they rattle on with their Christian’splaining saliva slinging tirades. It’s all about magic and supernaturalism.

 

[Ringtone]

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.
`

By extension the 'god of the gaps' argument could be anything. "We don't know so Zeus did it". "Well we just don't know so it must be Zarathustra". Or "The Great Juju of the Sea".

But of course you are trying to argue rationally with people that are irrational. They have no interest in evidence to begin with. They believe what they believe 'just coz'.

Or, like the Clown 'Boss', they claim "all evidence is subjective", and "everything" is evdience of god.
`

Yes they attempt to couch everything as 'we don't know so therefore it could be anything'. As if you have to know 100% of something to know anything about it and any unknown in any field means 'it's obviously god'. It is so tedious and lazy to try to make an argument like this.

Who is this they you're prattling about?

 

[abu afak]

Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the atheist in the gaps fallacy that there exists no evidence for God's existence. The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak. Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?
LOL.
Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?
Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?

There are inorganic long-chain molecules that aren't living per se, but organize that way naturally.
We don't know (the words of a true truth finder) what the spark was yet, but like everything else that has given us this wonderful modern way of life, we are learning and still looking.

You're a classic low IQ God-Gapper.
I can wait for the truth- not accept a bunch of ignorant creation myths of thousands of (contradictory) gods.
Tell you what..
You god guys decide which one is your best shot (without killing each other), then come back and we'll talk again.

`
`

 

[Ringtone]

Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the atheist in the gaps fallacy that there exists no evidence for God's existence. The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak. Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?

One thing at a time, slogan spouter.

The short answer: for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge. The long answer:
Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.

Why do you believe it's possible?

 

[Hollie]

Well, you were mostly doing okay for a while there, until you got to abiogenesis, which is manifestly impossible, and, especially, when you blurted the atheist in the gaps fallacy that there exists no evidence for God's existence. The latter is, especially, the stuff of mindless slogan speak. Also, I seriously doubt that you, as one who obviously doesn't grasp why the latter claim is beyond drooling stupidity, really know much about the research regarding the hypothesis of chemical evolution.

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?

One thing at a time, slogan spouter.

The short answer: for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge. The long answer:
Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.

Why do you believe it's possible?

Oh, lovely. A self-serving fundie crank trying to establish a ministry.

Do you offer Kool-aid at your sermons?

 

[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."

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?

Oh, I see. 5 million years isn't anything so evos would expect little change LOL.

The clue to how the trilobites became extinct is found in where they lived and where they were found.

TRILOBITE FOSSILS - Creation Engineering Concepts

All fossil images and descriptions ©2017 all rights reserved. Contact us for permission policy. Trilobite Paralejuris Description: The Paralejuris fossil trilobite is 3″ long X 1 1/4″ wide X 9/16″ thick. The matrix is 3 1/2″ wide X 4 1/8″ long X 1″ thick. The head shield is convex and nearly...

www.creationengineeringconcepts.org

How would a religo resolve a timeframe of 5 million years?

The ID’iot creation ministries wouldn’t have been able to explain the concepts to you but large scale evolutionary change would not necessarily occur without changes to environment and other external forces.

You make a mistake limiting your exposure to science with ID’iot creation ministries. As I demonstrated earlier, these charlatans are purveyors of fraud and deceit as was the case with the edited and parsed “quote” by Niles Eldridge you posted.

I couldn’t help but notice that the ID’iot creation ministry you used in your post identifies something they call “Biblical Paleontology” as opposed to Paleontology which is absent supernaturalism.

I couldn’t help but notice that a book he wrote is described as: “In the Creation Dialogues, creation scientist J.D. Mitchell scientifically and biblically refutes naturalistic philosophy and explains the errors that result from attempts by Christians to accept atheistic and deistic ideas into their faith and worldview.”

I couldn’t help but notice there is no attempt by Mitchell to christian’splain that he is not willing to refute the science data for biological evolution so he stands in the corner refuting something he calls “naturalistic philosophy”.

Now that’s pretty darn funny.

We are creationists and there is no time frame of five million years allocated to trilobites or any other creature. That only happened because of Darwin and he was wrong about almost everything. Like I said, before Darwin people believed the Earth and universe were around six thousand years old and its still around that number. One of the evidence that shows Darwin was wrong is there were no cave people.

As for Eldridge, if he did refute Darwin's finches story, then why didn't he and his people correct that chart that is posted on general articles and a lot science text books? Why isn't it corrected if Darwin never studied them on Galapalagos? The website that I use still gives Darwin credit for studying finches on Galapalagos -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090201_darwinday.

 

[abu afak]

One thing at a time, slogan spouter.

The short answer: for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge. The long answer:
Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.

Why do you believe it's possible?

No, No
You already lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise.

me:
Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?
LOL.
Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?
Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense? ​

So you tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden.
You said something was impossible, but it's at least AS possible as your fantasy.
ANSWER your busted claim/premise.
You couldn't.
You already lost.

Your article:
I hardly know where to start on the premise errors and fallacies of your political hang-ups/Mental illness about "Atheists."
93% of the NAS do not believe in god.
97% of the UK's Royal Fellow the same.
"" Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. ""
Really?
Your article is garbage. An unscientific grudge against ATHEISTS, NOT refutation of any evolution Science.
IOW, you are more concerned with saving your Religious beliefs/god than any scientific point: a Crusade against unbelievers!

ID is stealth creationism. No more... and discredited.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate, altho the former could be viewed as an extension/leap, but unnecessary.
Abio is still speculative/unknown, while evolution is a Fact once life started.

Evolution has overwhelming evidence, god/gods have NONE.
In fact, Tens of thousands of gods have gone down the drain as science has put them out of business and enlightened us all.

I've made many previous entries/OPs on this over the years.
Here's a one by the Editor-in-Chief of Sciam.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Lately we've had a Bimbo Outbreak here, with kweationist klowns and konspiwicysts starting whacky strings. Virtually all the challenges are answered here briefly. 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense John Rennie, Editor in Chief Scientific American - June 2002 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense...

www.usmessageboard.com

And another..

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

Another Evidence of Evolution. Just part of an Overwhelming body of such. One rarely mentioned but very telling. Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless...

www.usmessageboard.com

and many more which help confirm Evolution.

Read em rookie.
Get back to me with answers and then I'll link more.

`

 

[james bond]

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?

First, spontaneous generation has been debunked by the scientific method already. Abiogenesis is the same as SG. Why do you believe something that has never happened?

 

[abu afak]

First, spontaneous generation has been debunked by the scientific method already. Abiogenesis is the same as SG. Why do you believe something that has never happened?

Matter becoming life is not "spontaneous generation." (it's more like spontaneous combustion)
Nothing becoming god (whatever the hell that is) IS spontaneous generation.
You lose you STUPID MONKEY.
`

 

[Ringtone]

One thing at a time, slogan spouter.

The short answer: for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge. The long answer:
Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.

Why do you believe it's possible?

No, No
You already lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise.

me:​

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?​

LOL.​

Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?​

Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense? ​

No, no.

You didn't answer the question at all. You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, ad hominem, appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.

Once again. . . .

Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?

 

[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?

Oh, I see. 5 million years isn't anything so evos would expect little change LOL.

The clue to how the trilobites became extinct is found in where they lived and where they were found.

TRILOBITE FOSSILS - Creation Engineering Concepts

All fossil images and descriptions ©2017 all rights reserved. Contact us for permission policy. Trilobite Paralejuris Description: The Paralejuris fossil trilobite is 3″ long X 1 1/4″ wide X 9/16″ thick. The matrix is 3 1/2″ wide X 4 1/8″ long X 1″ thick. The head shield is convex and nearly...

www.creationengineeringconcepts.org

How would a religo resolve a timeframe of 5 million years?

The ID’iot creation ministries wouldn’t have been able to explain the concepts to you but large scale evolutionary change would not necessarily occur without changes to environment and other external forces.

You make a mistake limiting your exposure to science with ID’iot creation ministries. As I demonstrated earlier, these charlatans are purveyors of fraud and deceit as was the case with the edited and parsed “quote” by Niles Eldridge you posted.

I couldn’t help but notice that the ID’iot creation ministry you used in your post identifies something they call “Biblical Paleontology” as opposed to Paleontology which is absent supernaturalism.

I couldn’t help but notice that a book he wrote is described as: “In the Creation Dialogues, creation scientist J.D. Mitchell scientifically and biblically refutes naturalistic philosophy and explains the errors that result from attempts by Christians to accept atheistic and deistic ideas into their faith and worldview.”

I couldn’t help but notice there is no attempt by Mitchell to christian’splain that he is not willing to refute the science data for biological evolution so he stands in the corner refuting something he calls “naturalistic philosophy”.

Now that’s pretty darn funny.

We are creationists and there is no time frame of five million years allocated to trilobites or any other creature. That only happened because of Darwin and he was wrong about almost everything. Like I said, before Darwin people believed the Earth and universe were around six thousand years old and its still around that number. One of the evidence that shows Darwin was wrong is there were no cave people.

As for Eldridge, if he did refute Darwin's finches story, then why didn't he and his people correct that chart that is posted on general articles and a lot science text books? Why isn't it corrected if Darwin never studied them on Galapalagos? The website that I use still gives Darwin credit for studying finches on Galapalagos -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090201_darwinday.

You certainly are an ID'iot creationer. You espouse the fraud so common to ID'iot creationer ministries. That ID'iot creationers refuse to accept timelines greater than 6,000 years is expected. But then to flail your Pom Poms for conspiracy theories that represent science as false and in error because it conflicts with the magic and supernaturalism that is a part of fundamentalist religious belief is not offering anything credible.

What exactly is ''Darwin people''?

To suggest that people (what people - ''Darwin people''?) before Darwin believed the earth was 6,000 years old is false and ridiculous. Long before Darwin, people understood that fossil remains were a contradiction to the Noah fable.

 

[Hollie]

One thing at a time, slogan spouter.

The short answer: for reasons that are beyond your experience and knowledge. The long answer:
Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I'm Michael Rawlings, by the way, the author of the article.

Why do you believe it's possible?

No, No
You already lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise.

me:​

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?​

LOL.​

Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?​

Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense? ​

No, no.

You didn't answer the question at all. You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, ad hominem, appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.

Once again. . . .

Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?

Well, referring to your gods as ''transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness....because I say so'' is a rather obvious example of ''hysterically incoherent string of slogans, ad hominem, appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition...'

Interesting how often you utterly deconstruct your own flaming tirades with flaming tirades.

Carry on.

 

[abu afak]

No, no.

You didn't answer the question at all. You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, ad hominem, appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.

Once again. . . .

Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?

No No
Again, it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.

You already Lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise/assertion.

me:​

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?​

LOL.​

Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?​

Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?​

So Twice now you've tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden. YOUR BURDEN for YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.

It's still on you Reverend anti-Atheist-Clown.
YOU had NO answer to YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
All that laughable Bury-em-with-Bullshit trash you write and you cannot back your assertion.


`

 

[Ringtone]

No, no.

You didn't answer the question at all. You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, ad hominem, appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.

Once again. . . .

Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?

No No
Again, it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.

You already Lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise/assertion.

me:​

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?​

LOL.​

Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?​

Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?​

So Twice now you've tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden. YOUR BURDEN for YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.

It's still on you Reverend anti-Atheist-Clown.
YOU had NO answer to YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
All that laughable Bury-em-with-Bullshit trash you write and you cannot back your assertion.


`

You're a slogan-spouting imbecile of a mindless fool who really doesn't have the slightest clue why you believe what you do. You're dismissed, relegated to the Hollie Asylum of US Message Board. LOL!

 

[Hollie]

No, no.

You didn't answer the question at all. You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, ad hominem, appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.

Once again. . . .

Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?

No No
Again, it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.

You already Lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise/assertion.

me:​

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?​

LOL.​

Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?​

Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?​

So Twice now you've tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden. YOUR BURDEN for YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.

It's still on you Reverend anti-Atheist-Clown.
YOU had NO answer to YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
All that laughable Bury-em-with-Bullshit trash you write and you cannot back your assertion.


`

You're a slogan-spouting imbecile of a mindless fool who really doesn't have the slightest clue why you believe what you do. You're dismissed, relegated to the Hollie Asylum of US Message Board. LOL!

View attachment 441800

Interesting just how quickly the hyper-religious run for shelter when their sacred cows are brought to slaughter.

 

[abu afak]

No, no.

You didn't answer the question at all. You just spouted an hysterically incoherent string of slogans, ad hominem, appeals to authority regarding the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, and that God—who by definition is a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness—sprung into existence, presumably, from an ontological nothingness, which is rank stupidity.

Once again. . . .

Why do you believe abiogenesis is possible?

No No
Again, it as YOU who made an ASSERTION and me who asked the question challenging it.

You already Lost/did NOT answer my counter to YOUR premise/assertion.

me:​

Why is abiogenesis "Manifestly impossible"?​

LOL.​

Is it less possible that a 'god' sprung into existence from nothing?​

Only YOUR personal Magic makes sense?​

So Twice now you've tried to turn the tables on your illogic/shift the burden. YOUR BURDEN for YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.

It's still on you Reverend anti-Atheist-Clown.
YOU had NO answer to YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION.
All that laughable Bury-em-with-Bullshit trash you write and you cannot back your assertion.


`

You're a slogan-spouting imbecile of a mindless fool who really doesn't have the slightest clue why you believe what you do. You're dismissed, relegated to the Hollie Asylum of US Message Board. LOL!

View attachment 441800

IOW, you still can't answer.
You lost.
I nailed you on trying the burden shift.
You're not smart enough to pull shit with me.
Not to mention your baseless and ill-fated religious agenda/hang up.
What a ****** up website/article too. Loony tunes with footnotes as some sort of try for credibility


`

 

[Ringtone]

IOW, you still can't answer.

Why, precisely, do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Why, precisely, do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?