The Evolution Big Lie; Evolution Proves Metapysical Nauralism

[JimBowie1958]

Your belief boils down to saying "if it can't be proven scientifically, then God did it."

That's an example of non-logic.

Why is that irrational? Just because we know or don't know how it happened does not mean that God did not do it. Our scientific knowledge of the how is irrelevant to the who and why.

God of the gaps fallacy.

To say that God did it regardless of whether we know how or not is not 'God of the Gaps' fallacy.

'God of the Gaps' applies only to cases where the how is unknown and an appeal to a miraculous event is made the explanation.

If God acts providentially and not miraculously in an event and we attribute His unseen guidance, there is no gap.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why is that irrational? Just because we know or don't know how it happened does not mean that God did not do it. Our scientific knowledge of the how is irrelevant to the who and why.

God of the gaps fallacy.

There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy and never has been. Rather, there's the materialist's fallacy of confounding the distinction between mechanism and agency.

In the meantime, bripat9643's allegation regarding my supposed logical error is still false. Indeed, his allegation is a non sequitur, just as JimBowie's follow up is.

Look here, guys. The materialist merely assumes that all of natural history is an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. That's his metaphysical presupposition for science, and it is no more subject to scientific falsification than is my metaphysical presupposition for science.

That is an incontrovertible fact, a fact that flies right over the head of the atheist, not the stuff of any logical error.

And the materialist is stuck with abiogenesis and evolution to explain the origin of life and its speciation.

An unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect of an evolutionary kind, from the cosmological to the astronomical to the chemical to the biological . . . or a history of creative events and extinctions, i.e., thereafter subject to the dictates of the laws of nature? The evidence would in fact look the same despite the ill-considered and unimaginative claims of the materialist.

Jim, evolution is an unwarranted compromise. It's not in scripture. Certainly, abiogenesis is a fantasy, and Darwinism cannot as satisfactorily account for the fossil record as creationism. Further, the allegedly best supports for the feverish and mathematically improbable claims of evolution, vestigial organs and endogenous retro viruses, the premature and underlying assumptions thereof, are unraveling in the face of recent discoveries.

Meh, you think God ran the billiard tables; I think he puts all the balls in with one shot from the very beginning.

We don't disagree on who and why, just on details of the how.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So to be clear, you are a "god of the gaps" atheist. Got it.

So what is the God in the gaps fallacy precisely according to you?

What it always has been, an attempt to claim God in every gap in our knowledge. Example, "We don't know how life began - therefore God".

lol, a very flawed definition, as a miraculous event is needed to be the filler for the gap, else there is no gap being explained.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So was there any point to this thread, other than to set up a strawman about how awful atheists are because they fail to care about what certain people demand they care about?

Are you sober?

I'll take that as a "no", as will most other people. Your only goal here was to justify hating atheists, but you weren't honest enough to admit it. That dishonesty destroys all your claims of the moral superiority of your system. Essentially, your bad behavior disproves your own point more thoroughly than any of us could have.

I don't hate atheists, just stupid cock-suckers like you.

The point to the OP which is abundantly apparent, is that secularists all too often use the theory of evolution to slip in assumptions about metaphysical naturalism.


Metaphysical naturalism is a fraud, a lie and contrary to the data we already have.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.

There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.

Define 'directly related', ass hat.

 

[ABikerSailor]

There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.

There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.

Define 'directly related', ass hat.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with a banana? It's around 50 percent.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with other mammals? The percentage (depending on the species) is much higher, up around 95 percent.

There is currently a show on FOX network that illustrates a lot of those points quite nicely. It was originally started under Carl Sagan, and is now hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it's called Nova.

You should watch it sometime.

 

[theHawk]

The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.

They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.

They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.

Actually, they have, you just have to be willing to hear the truth.

Simple amino acids can be formed when various chemicals come into contact with each other, but what turns them into DNA and RNA is electricity (which occurs naturally in clouds from the ions rubbing against one another).

Form DNA and RNA, and you get life.

BTW..................we are told in the Bible that we were made in the image of God. Human civilization has evolved quite a bit (and so has the technology) since those times. We went from being hunter/gatherers to farmers, to cities and so on.

Shoot................look at the way warfare has evolved over the ages.

Never mind how cities and other works of man have evolved.

If we're created in God's image, and we are able to evolve, then why can't God have made evolution in living things possible?

 

[orogenicman]

The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.

They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.

Here's the thing, dude. The universe is not totally inorganic. Organic compounds are found all over the universe, but particularly in stellar nurseries called Nebulae. Many organic compounds that are vital to life as we know it readily form in nature without the presence of life. There are even organic compounds vital to life found in meteorites and even comets. So, care to rephrase your bullshite story?

 

[orogenicman]

There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.

Define 'directly related', ass hat.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with a banana? It's around 50 percent.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with other mammals? The percentage (depending on the species) is much higher, up around 95 percent.

There is currently a show on FOX network that illustrates a lot of those points quite nicely. It was originally started under Carl Sagan, and is now hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it's called Nova.

You should watch it sometime.

Actually, it is called Cosmos. But you are right, we share a lot of our DNA with many other species. And our genome is far from the most diverse. The genome of the Southern Pine tree is 7 times larger than our own. He should think about that next time he chops some firewood.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.

Define 'directly related', ass hat.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with a banana? It's around 50 percent.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with other mammals? The percentage (depending on the species) is much higher, up around 95 percent.

There is currently a show on FOX network that illustrates a lot of those points quite nicely. It was originally started under Carl Sagan, and is now hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it's called Nova.

You should watch it sometime.

Lol, no one has yet defined what they mean by 'directly related'. It does not mean, 'Have a lot of DNA in common', because if it did then every human being is 'directly related' to every other human being and that is not what the phrase means.

When I say that I am directly related to someone, I mean they are in my immediate family or I am a direct descendant of theirs or they are of me.

To say as Dumbass Nudley did that all species are directly related is simply hyperbole to the point of stupidity.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Define 'directly related', ass hat.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with a banana? It's around 50 percent.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with other mammals? The percentage (depending on the species) is much higher, up around 95 percent.

There is currently a show on FOX network that illustrates a lot of those points quite nicely. It was originally started under Carl Sagan, and is now hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it's called Nova.

You should watch it sometime.

Actually, it is called Cosmos. But you are right, we share a lot of our DNA with many other species. And our genome is far from the most diverse. The genome of the Southern Pine tree is 7 times larger than our own. He should think about that next time he chops some firewood.

Why? What difference would it make?

And of course we share a lot of DNA with other species as we have the same Designer; why re-invent the wheel?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.

They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.

Actually, they have, you just have to be willing to hear the truth.

Simple amino acids can be formed when various chemicals come into contact with each other, but what turns them into DNA and RNA is electricity (which occurs naturally in clouds from the ions rubbing against one another).

Form DNA and RNA, and you get life.

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string. They have done some things starting With RNA already assembled, but not prior to RNA.

Even then, under laboratory conditions, they have come nowhere near the complexity of a single cell organism.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yAbMHlXJryM#t=70]The Complexity of a Cell - YouTube[/ame]

And, once again, Evolution has ZERO to do with Abiogenesis.

BTW..................we are told in the Bible that we were made in the image of God. Human civilization has evolved quite a bit (and so has the technology) since those times. We went from being hunter/gatherers to farmers, to cities and so on.

Shoot................look at the way warfare has evolved over the ages.

Never mind how cities and other works of man have evolved.

If we're created in God's image, and we are able to evolve, then why can't God have made evolution in living things possible?

He did.

 

[orogenicman]

The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.

They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.

Actually, they have, you just have to be willing to hear the truth.

Simple amino acids can be formed when various chemicals come into contact with each other, but what turns them into DNA and RNA is electricity (which occurs naturally in clouds from the ions rubbing against one another).

Form DNA and RNA, and you get life.

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, they have, you just have to be willing to hear the truth.

Simple amino acids can be formed when various chemicals come into contact with each other, but what turns them into DNA and RNA is electricity (which occurs naturally in clouds from the ions rubbing against one another).

Form DNA and RNA, and you get life.

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

From your own article:

First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds.

The team—led by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology—then evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.

This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and again—artificial heredity.

Last, the team determined that HNA, one of the six XNA polymers, could respond to selective pressure in a test tube.

So they have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.

And more.....

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution, lol.

That more supports my claims of guided evolution than some godless model that just fell together by trial and error.

 

[orogenicman]

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

From your own article:

First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds.

The team—led by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology—then evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.

This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and again—artificial heredity.

Last, the team determined that HNA, one of the six XNA polymers, could respond to selective pressure in a test tube.

So they have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.

And more.....

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution, lol.

That more supports my claims of guided evolution than some godless model that just fell together by trial and error.

Bwhahahahahahahaha!!! OMG! EPIC FAIL!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

From your own article:
So they have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.

And more.....

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution, lol.

That more supports my claims of guided evolution than some godless model that just fell together by trial and error.

Bwhahahahahahahaha!!! OMG! EPIC FAIL!

lol, did you actually read the article?

If so, where am I wrong? I even quoted the text, so your laughter seems to be falling mostly on YOU, dear.

 

[orogenicman]

Dipshit, when you claimed:

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dipshit, when you claimed:

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!

Lol, you respond with verbose nonsense; you have not made a case by simply posting a link to an article you haven't read, doofus.

Give the argument with evidence AND a link, that is how you make a case.

roflmao

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So to be clear, you are a "god of the gaps" atheist. Got it.

So what is the God in the gaps fallacy precisely according to you?

What it always has been, an attempt to claim God in every gap in our knowledge. Example, "We don't know how life began - therefore God".

No. Abiogenesis is a fairytale; therefore, it's false. And filling in the blanks of our knowledge about the common mechanisms of the natural world, objectively speaking, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a divine agency of origin.

There's no such thing as God in the gaps.