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

[ding]

Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.

Your dogmatic beliefs, attacks against rival religions and your desire for government to implement your morally relativistic desires says otherwise.

No they don't. You guys just have no way to intellectually elevate your magical hooha, so your only option left is to try to drag opposing positions into the magical, shitty murk where your beliefs reside. It's like vandalizing your neighbor's house to make your own house look better.

This is you defending your religion against an attack from a rival religion.

Haha, sure ding. Soothe yourself. Be my guest.

You are the biggest religious fanatic here. You are worse than the Westboro Baptists.

 

[abu afak]

And what's that supposed to mean?

It means your stupid, and you proved it by not being able to deal with the rest of my post/logic, so had to Dishonestly omit it from the quote.
We both know that.

Bye then

not just "Bye then", it's "Necessarily Bye" as you are not able to deal with/answer anything logical.
That is/was my meaty explanation of why I can say there is no god/s for all Practical Purposes. (without, of course, having the impossible burden of having to prove a negative).

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As opposed to a rhetorical exchange here?

As opposed to scrutiny by more than one person at different times, which undermines your childish, rhetorical dancing. Of course. Again, i should not have to explain that to a functioning adult. I think you are getting slower.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are the biggest religious fanatic here. You are worse than the Westboro Baptists.

Like this horseshit. You always devolve into a quivering little crybaby who cant stay on topic, when a person undermines your garbage.

 

[ding]

As opposed to a rhetorical exchange here?

As opposed to scrutiny by more than one person at different times, which undermines your childish, rhetorical dancing. Of course. Again, i should not have to explain that to a functioning adult. I think you are getting slower.

You scared.

 

[ding]

You are the biggest religious fanatic here. You are worse than the Westboro Baptists.

Like this horseshit. You always devolve into a quivering little crybaby who cant stay on topic, when a person undermines your garbage.

Hands up! Don't shoot!

 

[Grumblenuts]

The dilation of time comes from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ... though these are interesting questions about General Relativity ... my question is what is wrong with the derivation posted on Wikipedia ... or if you'd like, what is wrong with Special Relativity? ...

It's irksome.

Special Relativity Is Irksome

This paper defines a new way to assess the scientific value of Einstein’s special theory of relativity by defining a …

beyondmainstream.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The dilation of time comes from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ... though these are interesting questions about General Relativity ... my question is what is wrong with the derivation posted on Wikipedia ... or if you'd like, what is wrong with Special Relativity? ...

It's irksome.

Special Relativity Is Irksome

This paper defines a new way to assess the scientific value of Einstein’s special theory of relativity by defining a …

beyondmainstream.org

Well aren't they all, on this kind of a scale. That's the challenge of "the Theory of Everything": the different theories do not fit well together. Theidea that all of them are true in all cases and at all times makes no sense, and is, therefore, "irksome".

 

[Stryder50]

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.
`

Concept of Intelligent Designer(Creator) does not require a theology/religion be attached.

 

[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.
`

Concept of Intelligent Designer(Creator) does not require a theology/religion be attached.

True! But you dont have to convince us. We are not the ones complaining that our theology contradicts the evidence.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Stephen J Gould
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened...
Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the Common Conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand...
The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters.
`

Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
The contradictions are NOT "supposed." They are real and scientific.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.” (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist, relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

“. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

“. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

Would you like more?

 

[Ringtone]

Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
The contradictions are NOT "supposed." They are real and scientific.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.” (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist, relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

“. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

“. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

Would you like more?

There has never been any gaps in our knowledge regarding ultimate origins in the first place. The greatest hoax of all is the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism. This is the atheist in the gap fallacy; a.k.a, nature did it! But, then, the atheist is irrational. He is a religious fanatic, and his religion is naturalism. The naturalist's mythical notions of chemical evolution (abiogenesis) and biological evolution follow, and what we have here is a self-imposed delusion: evolution is true because naturalism is true.

In the meantime back to reality, the imperatives of logic, mathematics and cosmological physics manifestly evince that the physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. Hence, the Cause of its existence is eternally self-subsistent, timeless, immaterial and of incomparable greatness. Moreover, life comes from life only, and the circularly limited range of adaptive radiation does not and cannot affect the transmutation of one kind species into an entirely different kind of species.

 

[Hollie]

Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
The contradictions are NOT "supposed." They are real and scientific.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.” (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist, relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

“. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

“. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

Would you like more?

That’s fine. Another boatload of “quotes” you stole from political chick.

Creationers use “quotes” as appeals to authority. They troll creationer websites looking for “quotes” they copy and paste thinking they have found a weighty authority. In science, though, the ultimate authority is the evidence itself, so that is what writers refer to. “Quotes” from creationer charlatans cannot substitute for evidence.

As we see with the “quotes” so often edited, altered or parsed by the creationers, “quotes” are easy to edit and parse to alter what an author wrote or tried to convey. Science evolves and new understandings can develop over time. No single “quote” can do justice to science investigation. As we see so often with a few, identifiable religious extremists, It is extremely easy to find out-of-context quotes that clearly alter and misrepresent a scientists’s ideas. “Quotes” dumped in threads by those few identifiable religious extremists should be regarded with skepticism because of their history of promoting fraud.

 

[abu afak]

Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity Fallacy.

Is common since found as a genetic trait found in our DNA
DNA_Structure+Key+Labelled.pn_NoBB.png (3024×3000) (wikimedia.org)

In the above is the imprint of our creator,
.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,..,& What created the rest

In there.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., is what separates us from the rest
We are keeping our selves alive not only by using our instincts; but by our moral values.

If we loose them, all is lost
what do you think-?

Couldn’t a supercomputer compute this in real time-?
Some can if programed with our instincts---(may be)

Instinct, an inborn impulse or motivation to action typically performed in response to specific external stimuli. Today instinct is generally described as a stereotyped, apparently unlearned, genetically determined behaviour pattern.
Defining instinct

As one to another, instincts are not the only thing that is keeping us alive.
Jesus would tell you what is, if you only listed/listen with an open mind.

Or so it seems to me
How about you-? -
-

 

[james bond]

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

You're just using circular reasoning. We know that the Bible, i.e. God, explained it first. For example, we had to have EMS (light) to power the universe. God explained the big bang with His singularity. Atheists stole it with quantum mechanics singularity. There is no such thing.

 

[Hollie]

You're just using circular reasoning. We know that the Bible, i.e. God, explained it first. For example, we had to have EMS (light) to power the universe. God explained the big bang with His singularity. Atheists stole it with quantum mechanics singularity. There is no such thing.

Your gods explained nothing in the bibles. The bibles were written by men. You're hoping to re-write your religionism by claiming that your gods authored or ''explained'' something when the bibles don't support that.

 

[K9Buck]

Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
The contradictions are NOT "supposed." They are real and scientific.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.” (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist, relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

“. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

“. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

Would you like more?

Great post from the best poster on this forum.

 

[K9Buck]

But, then, the atheist is irrational. He is a religious fanatic, and his religion is naturalism.

That's because of what is described in 2 Corinthians 4:4

 

[abu afak]

K9Buck
Actually it's called "quote mining."
All Chem Eng does in this section.
It's a way of Lying by quoting people out of context, and other people who are not authorities on the topic.
Most oft used by Creationists.
The VAST majority of scientists, especially biologists and geneticists, believe in Evolution, which is the very Basis of modern biology.,
See my sig: A person/evolution Proponent/expert who is actually used/Abused by quote miners like Chem-Eng.

See ie,

Quote mining

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...

rationalwiki.org

In my thread on the Dishonest tactic:

The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'

Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik. Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining Quote mining (also contextomy) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint...

www.usmessageboard.com

`

 

[ChemEngineer]

Great post from the best poster on this forum.

God bless you and increase your territory, dear Friend.