posted on May, 30 2018 @ 01:53 PM
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
; 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
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)