The Fallacies of Evolution Redux Irony

No Brahma is not the same god as Shiva according to Hindu, but assuming you did not know that why claim your god is the only god but with a different name? Have you actually proved other gods do not exist, and if not how can you say there is only one god?

 

Definition of theory
plural theories
1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

• the wave theory of light

2a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

• her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

• in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all

: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

• theory of equations

4: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

• music theory

5: abstract thought : speculation
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

I see nothing establishing any outcomes in a theory.
A theory does NOT establish outcomes. Merely possibilities. Or a belief, or a procedure or principle, policy, hypothetical.

But does not establish anything but perhaps an idea.

Like creation, is nothing but a theory.

 

Perhaps, or perhaps not.
Believe or believe not.

Perhaps they are about NO god or gods. Or many god or gods as the greek and romans used to BELIEVE.

So, perhaps there are countless gods like there are countless beliefs. So all is just as plausible and none shall take precedence. But to you and you alone.

 

These are your own words that expose that you don't appear know the difference.

As far as your Darwin fallacy above goes you can NOT quote him DIRECTLY making any such claim.

FTR Darwin became an atheist after seeing his daughter suffer and die.


http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/22/lette...to-being-an-atheist-sells-for-125000-5402164/

 

Taking a single sentence from Darwin, OUT OF CONTEXT, is disingenuous when it comes to the concept of the origin of life itself.

Darwin engaged in a lot of written dialogues on the subject.

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1970/JASA3-70Aulie.html

 

And unlike some people, I do not spend my time trying to convince others that their belief in their God is wrong.

 

Fascinating. Suggesting that you can determine the mind of mr Darwin. Seems a smidge pejorative, huh? But do continue to flail. It is fun to watch....

From you citation...

"
Darwin's letter, dated February 28th, 1882, to D. Mackintosh in which the following passage appears7:

Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity. I remember the time, above fifty years ago, when it was said that no substance found in a living plant or animal could be produced without the aid of vital forces. As far as external form is concerned, Eozoon shows how difficult it is to distinguish between organised and innrganised bodies. If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature. Whether the existence of a conscious God can be proved from the existence of the socalled laws of nature (i. e. fixed sequence of events) is a perplexing subject, on which I have often thought, but cannot see my way clearly..."

 

Ironic projection since that is exactly what you are doing!

Only one of us has DIRECTLY quoted Darwin's own words IN CONTEXT showing exactly what was on his mind.

Your flailing is not my problem.

 

See above, as noted in the citation from your source, he says in context what I've suggested that he did.

 

What is even more fascinating is @drluggit EDITING his post in response to my post!

 

Nope!

Darwin's own words do NOT support your disingenuous allegations.

 

First try didn't embed the quote, the quote, as noted supports the assertion from Darwin's own writings.. I know, you didn't actually bother to read it, but you should.

 

Onus is entirely on YOU to PROVE your own baseless allegation by putting YOUR quote side by side with what YOU allege Darwin wrote that supports it.

We all know that you won't and know why you won't!

 

How do you know they aren't? Evolution works over a huge period of time, much longer than human beings have been around and certainly longer than we've had the scientific knowledge to categorize such things.

You are right that evolution does not address the origin of life, and it's not supposed to. That's why it always puzzles me when religious folks feel threatened by the idea of evolution. Nothing about the concept prohibits the idea that evolution is simply the mechanism god chose to create the abundance and diversity of life we find on Earth. I'm an atheist, so I don't believe that God did any of it, but I can't substantiate an alternative to evolution or even the beginnings of the universe any more than religious folks can substantiate god.

I just don't see evolution as being an area that needs fought over because of religious beliefs.

 

I have. Do try to keep up. Darwin, from your own citation said: "
Darwin's letter, dated February 28th, 1882, to D. Mackintosh in which the following passage appears7:

Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity. I remember the time, above fifty years ago, when it was said that no substance found in a living plant or animal could be produced without the aid of vital forces. As far as external form is concerned, Eozoon shows how difficult it is to distinguish between organised and innrganised bodies. If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature. Whether the existence of a conscious God can be proved from the existence of the socalled laws of nature (i. e. fixed sequence of events) is a perplexing subject, on which I have often thought, but cannot see my way clearly..."

Done.

 

I won't speak for folks who are religious, but I do believe that their position is that "God created in his image", seems to be the crux. My critique though isn't religious. It begs the question of if not designed, then how nature, on it's own, organized sufficiently to produce the spark of life. Evolution is directly derivative of that, and might possibly also explain then progenisis. No?

I believe that we agree then that progenisis requires a leap of faith, until we can actually demonstrate life spontaneity. As in, the necessary mixture of goo that Darwin imagines was the source.

 

Wrong!

Nowhere in the above do I see any of YOUR quotes so no, you have NOT done anything of the sort.

What you originally alleged was that Darwin "supports spontaneous creation" but what is cited above is Darwin invoking the Law of Continuity.

 

Your confusion is duly noted.

 

Puerile ad hom duly noted in light of your abject FAILURE to prove your baseless allegation about Darwin.

 

You lashing out makes this more amusing, you know this, right?

 

Ironic given how amusing your repeated failures to support your fatuous allegations have become!

 

Perhaps not.
But I've seen you want to impose your belief from your god onto other people? Especially on abortion topics or LGBTQ rights?

Or do you not care how others live their life?

 

Those beliefs are not from God.

Believe it or not, even Christians can base things from other sources than God. I believed abortion was wrong before I was a Christian.

 

Good. It doesn't matter if you believe its right or wrong. You and everyone else can make their own choices on how to live.

But since you don't deny, you want to force your belief on the world, means you actually want the world to live like you.

I don't believe in abortion either. But I won't force 3B people to do as I believe. There's to many reasons for wanting an abortion. And it's none of my business. Nor yours.

 

no f'n delete
how can a site not have delete for mistakes?