Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
... only from, a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago.
...
...only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. ...
Let me ask again, we're talking about only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity?
Do you understand the difference between the following two sentences?
There is only evidence for natural processes being involved in the development of humanity.
There is evidence for only natural processes being involved in the development of humanity.
I've asked you this several times before, but you never answer.
The first sentence is a true statement. The second one is a claim that nobody but you is making. They are very different sentences.
Either you don't understand the difference, or you are lying every time you paste/macro your catchphrase. Which is it?
You should stop asking that question.
Naturalistic mechanisms appear sufficient to evolve humanity.
We cannot prove there was no divine intervention in evolving humanity.
That is your answer.
So in fact, we are NOT TALKING about ONLY naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity, we are talking about naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity, note how the word "only" was omitted there.
That doesn't answer the question of how naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged life form of long long ago. Either it was by time and chance (random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless, goalless) or it wasn't by time and chance but had intelligence involved in the creation.
All you have to do to prove the first one false is to present evidence that shows something other than a natural mechanism being responsible to developing humanity.
I bet you can't find anything other than a natural mechanism for anything, but let's just start with evolution, since that's what's got your panties in a bunch.
So, without evading, show us the evidence. Otherwise, you concede as both an evader and liar... Feel free to report me again for presenting the facts, if you like.
This will explain what you're trying to understand on a middle-to-high school level, if you actually look at it:
Welcome to Evolution 101!
Point out which part you wish for me to read. I'm especially interested in the area of identification of the impetus for this creationist view.
Read all of it. It's not like it's a hard read, but feel free to skip to the parts that have you most curious.
Whatever the case, it would be nice if you stopped incessantly repeating that lie of yours, and I think you would if you actually understood that what you are opposing is purely a fabrication of your imagination.
From this statement, you've made it clear that you don't understand the claim.
Nowhere in my claim did I say we have evidence for the first life form. Only that the ONLY EVIDENCE we have is for natural processes being involved in the development of humanity.
Until you learn how to understand English sufficiently, then there's little anyone can do to educate you in science. I'm sorry for whatever life you might have lived that deprived you of a proper education.
I guess you'll keep lying only because you know you can get away with it.
If you have any evidence whatsoever for that claim, please post it.
What one can do is take the information available and conclude that the incomprehensible complexity of the human machine is simply a product of time and chance or that the machine was more than the product of time and chance.
That doesn't answer the question of how naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged life form of long long ago. Either it was by time and chance (random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless, goalless) or it wasn't by time and chance but had intelligence involved in the creation.
There is no science supporting, nor evidence for, the atheistic Darwinist creationist view which teaches all life forms are the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
Does anybody bring up necessary existence? I can understand that some people would just avoid that. But no one has answers for anything being here, without that considered. There must be existence that is necessary existence, or nothing would exist, ever. We might not understand what such could be, but it is not the alternative, which is nothing and never anything other than nothing, total nonexistence, without existence of space, time, or anything. The alternative is yet staggering if it was never considered. Necessary existence, existence that exists because that existence must exist, cannot have any kind of limit to existence. Limits would be arbitrary but not involving what is essential existence. So everything that is true of this essential existence is unlimited in any way, infinite where that can be applied. This being would be the explanation of all else that was brought into existence. There is nothing otherwise for anything to exist.
Just as I say there are those who will just avoid the reasoning that is shown. But the logic is undeniable. It goes way beyond simply saying there's something, so God exists. There can be no logical denial of necessary existence, which will amount to all that was said of it in the quote above. If there wasn't that, there wouldn't be anything, that is there wouldn't be any material thing at all, there wouldn't be any potential or kinetic energy at all, no spatial dimensions, no dimension of time to have anything available, no power and no mind for any intelligence to be present anywhere, and with absolutely nothing in that way it is completely without logic to say all that was needed for the universe to exist as it does just came into being from nothing existing that is defined that way. To think that persistently is highly illogical, where belief that God is the explanation is without being so illogical, with there being reasonable explanation that is consistent with faith being put in God, that is still reasonable, as opposed to the alternative of denial, such as the dismissiveness that can be seen here. Those showing that just don't want to deal with it, and will avoid having anything to show that there would be acknowledgement of anything like the Creator.
If you actually look carefully to understand my argument, you would likely see that the logic doesn't appeal to God existing, the logic establishes that there is necessary existence, that existence is not finite by its necessity and is without any limit, and that has this necessary existence being the cause of all other things coming into being. This does not appeal to God, but what is established by logic with it is fully consistent with people's belief in God. There is no argument against that logically possible.
If the necessary existence was the universe itself, the universe would show all the characteristics of necessary existence. Necessary existence is absolutely necessary, it wouldn't be otherwise, by that necessity, and so would not change by evolving, never having a beginning either, that would only be something possible for what wouldn't be necessary existence. With the absolute necessity would be no limit or being finite. There would not be any uneven gaps. With there being power with being necessary existence, there would be infinite power. If there were ever any intelligence then there would be intelligence that is all-knowing. I could go on like that. The universe the way it appears is not like that at all. But one who believes that the universe is a manifestation of that infinite, omnipresent being, which would be omnipotent, would be consistent with that much of the logic, being a pantheist that way. This would not be an atheist position though, and the atheists have no explanation and are ignorant of that logic, either willfully if it is heard or conceived, or else never having come to that logic. So they cannot have anything consistent with it from their position.
The same argument would apply for fairies, leprechauns, and unicorns.
Believing in something that has no evidence is not logical.
Then all you have is a God of the Gaps argument.
How do those who don't want to see the logic of necessary existence equate it with things that are believed in without the logic or evidence? There isn't the same argument at all, it can't even be shown. And even you will believe some things without evidence. And there are abundant gaps in evidence for what is believed of evolution from natural processes without intelligence. The argument I made throughout my posts here wouldn't have really been looked at and considered then, you will put faith instead then in all that was needed for all the universe being here coming into existence when there was absolutely nothing existing for it before, and still claim you have the only position that is logical.
What is "necessary existence"?
Why does "necessary existence" require something to exist besides this universe?
The universe the way it appears is not like that at all. But one who believes that the universe is a manifestation of that infinite, omnipresent being, which would be omnipotent, would be consistent with that much of the logic, being a pantheist that way. This would not be an atheist position though, and the atheists have no explanation and are ignorant of that logic, either willfully if it is heard or conceived, or else never having come to that logic. So they cannot have anything consistent with it from their position.
Again, we see the selective wording. You left out "natural selection". Your choice of words is deliberatly chosen to leave out this key phrase in order to make the idea of evolution seem that much more unlikely.
It is a form of deception. It is a sin.
Again, we see the selective wording. You left out "natural selection". Your choice of words is deliberatly chosen to leave out this key phrase in order to make the idea of evolution seem that much more unlikely.
It is a form of deception. It is a sin.
No sir. While natural selection may not be included in the 'random' part of atheistic Darwinist creationism, it's very much a part of the mindless, meaningless, purposeless (some will include procreation here) and goalless attributes of the faith based belief system.
The sin is taking Jesus Christ completely out of creation, wouldn't you say?
On the other hand you know natural selection is a part of the evolution theory and you left it out in your description of evolution - on purpose, it seems to me . . and your deliberate misrepresentation of the theory is not innocent.
If you look the logic doesn't appeal to God existing, the logic establishes that there is necessary existence, that existence is not finite by its necessity and is without any limit, and that has this necessary existence being the cause of all other things coming into being.
If the necessary existence was the universe itself, the universe would show all the characteristics of necessary existence. Necessary existence is absolutely necessary, it wouldn't be otherwise, by that necessity, and so would not change by evolving, never having a beginning either, that would only be something possible for what wouldn't be necessary existence. With the absolute necessity would be no limit or being finite. There would not be any uneven gaps. With there being power with being necessary existence, there would be infinite power. If there were ever any intelligence then there would be intelligence that is all-knowing. I could go on like that. The universe the way it appears is not like that at all. But one who believes that the universe is a manifestation of that infinite, omnipresent being, which would be omnipotent, would be consistent with that much of the logic, being a pantheist that way. This would not be an atheist position though, and the atheists have no explanation and are ignorant of that logic, either willfully if it is heard or conceived, or else never having come to that logic. So they cannot have anything consistent with it from their position.
Loudmouth said:All you did was insert your conclusion into the premises. That isn't logical.
Even more, you try to point to the ignorance of atheists as support. That is an argument from ignorance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?