It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

page: 30
14
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Lol okay fella, so you have nothing verifiable or testable to support claims of gods, I'll leave you to your philosophical whining.




posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Lol okay fella, so you have nothing verifiable or testable to support claims of gods, I'll leave you to your philosophical whining.


Sure. And yu have no understanding what science is..or you would ask a scientific question.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Okay fella

...and your testable or verifiable evidence to support claims of gods is???
edit on 30-5-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: typo



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Okay fella

...and your testable or verifiable to support claims of gods is???



What is your testable verifiable evidence to support your claim there is no designer?

Oh that's right you don't know how science works..



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Urm, I'm not making any claims...are you sure you know how science works, you know, proving a negative and all that.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?



A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability if one can conceive an empirical observation or experiment which could refute it, that is, show it to be false.


In other words your question is not science and does not require science to answer it

In fact thinking that it does is a lack of scientific understanding.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Urm, I'm not making any claims...are you sure you know how science works, you know, proving a negative and all that.


You are not making a claim because it's not science. You are being a charletan.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

How can I claim 'there are no gods' ???
That wouldn't be science either, and you know it.
...now, what verifiable evidence do you have to support claims of gods?
Nothing, zero, nada.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: whereislogic

You got any testable or verifiable evidence that "God did it" ???
I'm open to change my mind if you have though, of course.

evidence = "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." (according to google)

You responded to my comment that started with the following fact to consider:

Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

The fact Luther D. Sutherland mentions is a well established (verified) fact in the fields of biology, paleontology and history. Other facts were brought up in my comment as well in relation to it. But since I feel you're doing it on purpose, I won't go through them all like this. It's also a follow up on the more detailed examples of the "complete and fully functional" machinery that make up lifeforms and the conclusions one can draw from them discussed in the video playlist I linked at the end of my first comment in this thread, which you probably didn't watch and have no interest to watch. So what's the point of 'jumping through your hoops'...paraphrasing the keypoint in the video about "Iron Chariots" after 6:06 and trying to keep it short, what I mean with that is explained in more detail there (page 25; which incidentally also has the video playlist I would be interested in discussing if anyone here has some detailed explanations of what's wrong with the logic and reasoning used in for example the 3rd video in relation to the first 2 and the follow-up videos, something a bit more detailed than the standard 'arguments', or to use Barcs' words, "excuses" that I've already mentioned in my list starting with "it's just a 'god of the gaps'-argument, ..."; see other comment on page 25, in that list I skipped the excuse "it's not verifiable or testable evidence", because that should be obviously included in the variations I mentioned earlier for the phrase 'there is no evidence for God', or you could phrase that now to 'that's not evidence for God', it's all part of the same behaviour described in more detail in the video about Iron Chariots where that phrase 'there is no evidence for God' is discussed, which contains clues as to why someone would want to rephrase that to "testable or verifiable evidence" for God).

Your description of being open to change your mind also seems somewhat inconsistent with the pattern of your commentary in this thread. You acting as if you're the arbiter of what qualifies as what you call "testable or verifiable evidence" for example, without even making a more detailed evaluation of it or even mentioning anything relevant and detailed in response to it explaining why 'it doesn't count' as "testable or verifiable evidence" (partly using your words and Barcs 'complaint' I mentioned earlier).
edit on 30-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You have nothing testable or verifiable to confirm claims of gods.
Come back to me when you have something more substantive than speculation.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The scientific evidence does not show this!a reply to: whereislogic



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: HiddenWaters

I know lol, clutching at straws with speculative philosophical argument is all the god squad have.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

More points to meet your cults quota, but still no evidence for your particular sky fairy.

Next.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The written word is what got people “believing “, cause only a few understood it, as an “entity”, the rest were in awe, a way to control the populace. I bet pharoh would not have gotten the pyramids built, though, if he wasn’t prepared to pay daily wages. And, if they believed he was a god, why did they ransack his tomb?a reply to: CornishCeltGuy



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

How can I claim 'there are no gods' ???
That wouldn't be science either, and you know it.
...now, what verifiable evidence do you have to support claims of gods?
Nothing, zero, nada.


Bingo. Yet you pose this as a scientific question.

It's not. You created a falacy by asking the op. Especially if you were not going to except philoshical arguments.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Lol whatever, you got any testable or verifiable evidence to support claims of gods or are you just here to whine about me?



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: HiddenWaters

Still no testable or verifiable evidence to support claims of gods, just more speculative questions.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
The scientific evidence does not show this!a reply to: whereislogic


That evidence (the related body of facts) that leads to the realization* of the other fact summed up there by Luther D. Sutherland is discussed in more detail in the links I shared earlier and repeated on page 25. In particular the video playlist at the bottem of my first comment in this thread. If you're willing to discuss the evidence in detail rather than using a variation of 'it ain't so', go right ahead. It would be much appreciated.

*: if one is willing to use inductive reasoning and/or common sense; if there's something wrong with that way of thinking and reasoning, you could for example respond in detail concerning what's explained regarding that subject in the video with Michael Behe currently at nr. 35 in the playlist, especially towards the end of his presentation of the evidence of design from biology. Which evidence, as being the body of relevant facts (in this case from biology), has and have already been verified by many working in the relevant fields (biology, paleontology and history regarding what Sutherland is specifically talking about).

Or you can find a bit more details about it here:
Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? (covers genetics, which falls under biology and the evidence from paleontology, which falls under history)
Is Evolution’s Foundation Missing?
edit on 30-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

So nothing verifiable then, just speculation?
LMAO



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Um, if you want to, i would willing to discuss how geliogic chemestry seams easily with biochemstry, you have to think outside the box. Life was not an organic cell that popped out of the “soup”. It could not, but, geology makes microscopic inorganic cells all the time, if enough “stuff” (organic elements) concentrate in those chambers, evolution can happen. We have proven organic “stuff” is generated all the time, in asteroids, comets, etc. that is the current thinking. There is a place on this planet, or any other water bearing, VOLCANCCAlY” active planet, that this happens. Sorry, did not know the spelling of valcaniccaly was. Ultimately, from my study, life is an electron looking to rest. ( NOT MY IDEA, but probably true)( gechemistry into organic chemstry) a reply to: whereislogic




top topics



 
14
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join