"God cannot create a square circle"

[Elixir]

I have yet to find...

Thanks for making it clear from the outset that you are pushing an argument from ignorance.

... any report cited on any blog or in Nature or Science where research shows that natural laws can actually account for the existence of the universe or life. If there were something out there, everyone would know it and you guys would have cited it before now.

I'm sure that the same was said about any natural explanation for lightning not too long ago...

If this is not the case, this issue would have been put to bed by now - and you would have the citations.

Where's your citation for the assertion that "In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be." ? You don't have those citations because they do not exist - but you still have your faith. Right?

Problem is, not all people have concluded what you say they have, which falsifies your assertion. Maybe some additional repetition will help.

 

[rhutchin]

Thanks for making it clear from the outset that you are pushing an argument from ignorance.

... any report cited on any blog or in Nature or Science where research shows that natural laws can actually account for the existence of the universe or life. If there were something out there, everyone would know it and you guys would have cited it before now.

I'm sure that the same was said about any natural explanation for lightning not too long ago...

If this is not the case, this issue would have been put to bed by now - and you would have the citations.

Where's your citation for the assertion that "In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be." ? You don't have those citations because they do not exist - but you still have your faith. Right?

Problem is, not all people have concluded what you say they have, which falsifies your assertion. Maybe some additional repetition will help.

At least we agree that there is nothing out there. If there were even you would have cited it rather than just deflecting. That's just the way it is.

 

[rhutchin]

Science is hardly pure. It is murky and uncertain and can take quite a while to gain a proper understanding of concepts.

The issue of evolution - the macro part relating to universal common descent - is as uncertain as it gets. It will take quite a while to gain a proper understanding of it.

 

[rhutchin]

The fact that no one's published a definite claim that THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED is not the same as being right that EVERYONE HAS CONCLUDED that it could never happen.
You're projecting. Based on your faith, not on the actual state of anyone's research, much less a 100% universal conclusion held among the researchers.

OK. Not 100%.

So, let me rephrase, "In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

 

[Mageth]

At least we agree that there is nothing out there.

No we don't.

Once again, we don't agree with your baseless assertions.

On what do you base your ludicrous assertion that there's "nothing out there", which is so easily traversed?

If there were even you would have cited it rather than just deflecting. That's just the way it is.

You persist in your argument from ignorance. I suppose that that's "just the way it is" with you. Sure seems to be all you have...

 

[Keith&Co.]

At least we agree that there is nothing out there.

Such a fantasy you view the world through. Your claims are shown to be vacuous posturing and you claim a tie...

If there were even you would have cited it rather than just deflecting. That's just the way it is.

Even if nothing's out there, that's still a far and distinct cry from your claim that 'haven't' is equal to 'people have positively concluded.' That's just how you choose to misinterpret reality.

And if there was anything to it, 'you would have cited it by now.'

 

[Mageth]

Science is hardly pure. It is murky and uncertain and can take quite a while to gain a proper understanding of concepts.

The issue of evolution - the macro part relating to universal common descent - is as uncertain as it gets. It will take quite a while to gain a proper understanding of it.

Universal common descent is a fact, or as close to a fact as science can get. Get used to it.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that no one's published a definite claim that THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED is not the same as being right that EVERYONE HAS CONCLUDED that it could never happen.
You're projecting. Based on your faith, not on the actual state of anyone's research, much less a 100% universal conclusion held among the researchers.

OK. Not 100%.

So, let me rephrase, "In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

Still BS. See my posts and those of others above that explain why. E.g., your misuse and abuse of "natural laws".

 

[GenesisNemesis]

So rhutchin, let's talk about the speed of light. Do you think there isn't any rational reason to believe it has remained constant, despite there being no evidence to the contrary?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The fact that no one's published a definite claim that THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED is not the same as being right that EVERYONE HAS CONCLUDED that it could never happen.
You're projecting. Based on your faith, not on the actual state of anyone's research, much less a 100% universal conclusion held among the researchers.

OK. Not 100%.

So, let me rephrase, "In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

Support that?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Macro evolution is a proven theory that all evolutionary experts have agreed on. There is a petition of 72 Nobel laureates supporting evolution as true and proven.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[6][18] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[6][19] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[20]

You are just out and out wrong about macroevolution, peddling creationist nonsense. Macroevolution is a proven fact and there is nothing uncertain about that in the least.

 

[jonJ]

It is because scientists refuse to ignore the rules of the game that they cannot find a way for the universe or life to exist. In order to get the universe and life, you have to break the rules (i.e., the natural laws that we see governing the universe and life).

Or, of course, it could be that cosmology has only been around for 100 years or so, and although it has made enormous strides over that period, it still has a little difficulty getting clear about something that happened fourteen billion years ago and millions of light years away. It really amuses me when theists claim that science is simultaneously so effective that it should have solved the riddle of the universe by now, and so ineffective that everything it has to say about evolution is wrong.

But let's play your silly game and pretend that cosmology has just learned God made the universe. Now what? How does that help anyone in any way? What gaps in our knowledge does it fill? What predictions can we make that we couldn't make before?

 

[Eric H]

Elixir;

How do you explain the fact that well over 99% of relevant (earth and life sciences) scientists - many if not most of whom are theists - accept the fact of common ancestry?

Evolution is not the problem, the theist who accept evolution, also accept that it could not happen without God.

Which is good. The more that theistic thought embraces scientific advances, the further it dumps god concepts into irrelevancy. When one accepts that a gap in our knowledge where they used to think that God was hiding has been filled without finding God in it, the number of gaps for God to be hiding in grows progressively smaller and smaller. Eventually, he just becomes pointless and you're left with harmlessly irrelevant religions like deism as opposed to the religions which cause all the problems.

Now we know why people are so passionate to promote the ToE, it is not to do with science, it is to shake people's faith. Sometimes that shows here with the apparent desperation to defend evo at all costs, and overlook all the problems.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

and overlook all the problems.

Like talking snakes?

 

[Rhea]

Now we know why people are so passionate to promote the ToE, it is not to do with science, it is to shake people's faith.

Nope, you have that wrong - you have a mistaken notion of other people's motivations. Time for you to drop that meme because it is an untruth and you don't want to be repeating untruths, right? That's Satan's work.

People are passionate to understand the world in a way that is reliable and makes useful predictions that can be used to create and invent and also fix and cure. Evolution does these things, so people are very very keen for more of that, please. Plus it is delightfully interesting and vast.

Religion does none of these things. It cannot predict, it cannot invent, it cannot improve, it cannot explain. It is full of boring repetition and has a finite book of explanation that never ever fixes its errors. So people's loss of faith when they are provided something that works is merely a side effect, not a goal.

It really is all about how much more wondrous science is than your god.


We could do a lot of different things if our goal was "to shake people's faith", but that's not what we do. We pursue science because - science.

 

[atrib]

Thanks for making it clear from the outset that you are pushing an argument from ignorance.

... any report cited on any blog or in Nature or Science where research shows that natural laws can actually account for the existence of the universe or life. If there were something out there, everyone would know it and you guys would have cited it before now.

I'm sure that the same was said about any natural explanation for lightning not too long ago...

If this is not the case, this issue would have been put to bed by now - and you would have the citations.

Where's your citation for the assertion that "In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be." ? You don't have those citations because they do not exist - but you still have your faith. Right?

Problem is, not all people have concluded what you say they have, which falsifies your assertion. Maybe some additional repetition will help.

At least we agree that there is nothing out there. If there were even you would have cited it rather than just deflecting. That's just the way it is.

Not true. Theoretical physicists have derived a number of hypothetical mathematical scenarios that appear to explain how the universe came to be in its present state. Membrane collisions is one example. You keep ignoring posts that tell you that.

 

[Elixir]

At least we agree that there is nothing out there.

There is certainly nothing "out there" to support your religious origins fantasy, or your false assertion about scientists. But there is evidence (do you know what that is?) to support various scientific hypotheses regarding origins.

 

[atrib]

Science is hardly pure. It is murky and uncertain and can take quite a while to gain a proper understanding of concepts.

The issue of evolution - the macro part relating to universal common descent - is as uncertain as it gets. It will take quite a while to gain a proper understanding of it.

Only in the minds of fevered creationists who see their worldview getting demolished as science progresses. Biological evolution is much better understood than a lot of other natural phenomena we take for granted, like gravity and light. Yet we don't see creationists up in arms railing against our incomplete knowledge of these subjects.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that no one's published a definite claim that THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED is not the same as being right that EVERYONE HAS CONCLUDED that it could never happen.
You're projecting. Based on your faith, not on the actual state of anyone's research, much less a 100% universal conclusion held among the researchers.

OK. Not 100%.

So, let me rephrase, "In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

This is a falsehood manufactured by you. Prove us wrong, show us where scientists have concluded this.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Now we know why people are so passionate to promote the ToE, it is not to do with science, it is to shake people's faith.

Eric, if we're absolutely CERTAIN that the ToE is the truth, and your (and everyone's) faith in God is a mistruth, is it really so bad that we want and hope for you to come to The Truth, rather than stew in a falsehood that drives you to make up horrible lies about other people's motivation in searching for The Truth?

Are YOU trying to get people to know the truth, so they don't waste their time giving money, power and attention to con men, promoting harmful lies?

Sometimes that shows here with the apparent desperation to defend evo at all costs, and overlook all the problems.

But the problems YOU complain about are made up bullshit with no relevance to actual science.
This is the falsity we're trying to fight.

 

[Mageth]

Now we know why people are so passionate to promote the ToE, it is not to do with science, it is to shake people's faith. Sometimes that shows here with the apparent desperation to defend evo at all costs, and overlook all the problems.

You claim "all the problems" with "evo" are being overlooked? That's an extraordinary assertion. Back it up.

But first...

Learn the diff between evolution (descent with modification from a common ancestor) and ToE (scientific explanations as to how evolution happens).

Evolution is a fact, or as near a fact as science can get. Deal with it. Evolution may be a problem for religious beliefs, but religious beliefs are not a problem for evolution.

ToE is a solid, robust scientific theory. As a scientific theory, ToE is open to scientific criticism. Creationists imagine or invent what they think are problems with ToE. And persist in asserting those as problems even after they've been shown to not be problems. However, I am not aware of any actual scientific problems with ToE that are being overlooked. And the assertion that all such problems are being overlooked is laughably ludicrous to me.

So again...You claim "all the problems" with "evo" are being overlooked. Back it up or retract it.

 

[Kharakov]

God's existence will be revealed, and it will be revealed that it is only bad attitude that causes one to deny the existence of God- there is work to be done, but this is no reason to disbelieve.

Self Mutation used to do that a lot, too.
Argue based on evidence that was GOING to be available, some day, after it was discovered.

You might notice that you misinterpreted what I said- but then again.... "Will be revealed" is different than "evidence will be presented". The revelation will be more of a tying together of various concepts, many of which you have an excellent grasp of (although you don't always apply them correctly when your emotions override your rational side)- ethics, logic, mathematics, physics, philosophy, sophistry, psychology, sociology, biology, artistry, cooking, into a viewpoint and simple realization of the fundamental consciousness of reality.

It's not that big of a deal. Nobody is going to snatch your cake from you.. well... hehe..

But in the end, convincing evidence is still lacking...which is exactly a good reason to disbelieve something, or at least withold belief. Right up there with 'the check is in the mail.'

So you accept the rules followed (physical rules) before you accept the beings following the rules. That's like accepting mathematics, when you've got a hot math teacher teaching you math... and math is cool, but the teacher is hot. Still want to learn the rules?