Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Jimmy D]

I'd bet money on the latter but he just doesn't want to admit to it.

He eventually admitted that that is what happened with his first list of quotes in the OP when they were shown to be quote mines and dishonest. I'm just amazed that he's done the same thing again. Of course I might be wrong, I doubt it though, seeing as one of the quotes has been mysteriously altered from it's original source with the words 'fine tuning' added from nowhere.

 

[Loudmouth]

As if you think these guys don't agree with eachother on this.
And they're quotes, not quote mines.

Just like this is a quote:

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

 

[The Cadet]

That's just hmm...a gratuitous non sequitur i.m.o. (iḿ not that good at waving debating vocab..)
I mean, it just makes no sense.

Just as well you don't; when you try to make logical arguments...

Complex systems dependent on complex systems don't work when not completed.
'nuff said.

...They make absolutely no sense.

But as for my argument, I think it makes perfect sense. Throughout history, mankind has attributed countless things to the whims of supernatural deities. Lightning and thunder. Volcanoes. Earthquakes. The tides. The sun. The moon. Eclipses. Diseases. Disorders. And each and every time, we've found a naturalistic explanation, and humanity has collectively slapped its forehead and thought, "Darn, how did we miss that?" Every. Single. Time. There has never been an alleged case of supernatural causation that held water, and the vast majority of them were shown to be demonstrably natural. And even beyond that, these claims of supernatural causation weren't even useful as hypotheses - they held no predictive or explanatory power, so we didn't even get any value from them being wrong.

So why, when it comes to this issue, do you insist on making the exact same mistake? Make as many excuses as you want, the argument, at the end of the day, boils down to, "We don't know how this is possible by naturalistic means, therefore it must have been supernatural causation". Or, to put it in an even shorter, more straightforward fashion: "I don't know, therefore I know it was God". It's an argument with a 0% track record, as every time we've declared something outside the realm of the natural, we later expanded our understanding of the natural.

I think my favorite part about this argument is what it implies. Here's a real quote, in the correct context, from a real scientist:

If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on. So, just be ready for that to happen, if that's how you want to come at the problem. So that's just simply the God of the gaps argument.
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
​

It's a bad argument logically, scientifically, historically, and theologically.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have established though that it is assessing irrepeatable history and therefore not science anyway.

Yet another creationist who doesn't understand how to do science.

You don't repeat the hypothesis.

Let me say that again, in case you missed it.

You don't repeat the hypothesis.

Repeatability in science refers to the evidence, and in the case of evolution it is the DNA sequence of modern species' genomes and fossils which can be repeatedly measured and observed. Those observations are used to TEST the hypothesis of what happened in the past.

You would think that the creationists would actually learn how the scientific method works before bashing it. Oh well.

 

[Hieronymus]

Which ones?

Creationist video's, so you can dismiss it.

So science can never help solve crimes, which are also 'unrepeatable history'?

There's not always proof, but one can make an assessment based on evidence which is gathered scientifically.
In this case, God pleads guilty too.

 

[Hieronymus]

The origin of species is not the same as the origin of life.

It is of life as we know it, it is of our existence, our lives.

Heck, even Darwin thought that life came about on Earth because of God putting it here.

Of course.
He wasn't stupid.

I'm sorry too, but you are arguing a strawman.

No.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yet another creationist who doesn't understand how to do science.

You don't repeat the hypothesis.

Let me say that again, in case you missed it.

You don't repeat the hypothesis.

Repeatability in science refers to the evidence, and in the case of evolution it is the DNA sequence of modern species' genomes and fossils which can be repeatedly measured and observed.

No, bluff.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'd bet money on the latter but he just doesn't want to admit to it.

I already did.
This doesn't make the quotes false.
Nor does it change anything about the decision of the church of mandatory naturalism to be unwilling to consider creation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is of life as we know it, it is of our existence, our lives.

No. It's not. Evolution does not concern itself with how life began. That is not even what evolution stands for. It's about the development of life.
I'll repeat that again: THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE.
Once more for emphasis: THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE.

No.

Yes, you are creating a strawman. You are saying that evolution deals with the origin of life, a facet of biology which evolution does not even concern itself with, then you attack that topic and then when no-one comments on that topic (which anyone who knows about evolution knows is false), you declare victory.
That's why it's a strawman.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's a load of bull-spit.

Nope, sorry...

 

[Hieronymus]

No. It's not.

Yes it is.

 

[Hieronymus]

Agree with each other on what exactly? Do you think that Steven Weinberg is saying that a Deity must have 'adjusted' the universe?

No, he took his pick, probably.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I already did.
This doesn't make the quotes false.
Nor does it change anything about the decision of the church of mandatory naturalism to be unwilling to consider creation.

The quotes are false because they have been twisted and distorted to mean something they do not mean. You are spreading lies.
And there is no 'church of mandatory naturalism'. If there is, then your dogmatic belief in the Bible is a idolatrous cult, since you're taking the words of the Bible of the fact's shown by the world God made and proven by the scientists who study God's world.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nope, sorry...

It is. A whole dump truck's worth.

 

[Hieronymus]

You assume that it isn't natural, and ignore all of the evidence demonstrating otherwise.

You mean the mountains of evidence that aren't there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes it is.

Show me where in the scientific literature, the ACTUAL scientific literature, that evolution states what the origin of life is, not as a hypothesis but as a theory.
If you cannot, then you are willingly engaging in lying.

 

[Hieronymus]

Show me where in the scientific literature, the ACTUAL scientific literature, that evolution states what the origin of life is, not as a hypothesis but as a theory.

Just read carefully what i actually wrote.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just read carefully what i actually wrote.

No, YOU read carefully and give an actual response to my comment: Show me where in the scientific literature, the ACTUAL scientific literature, that evolution states what the origin of life is, not as a hypothesis but as a theory.

But the fact that you have refused to obviously proves that you are lying and just don't want to admit it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need RANDOM MUTATIONS.
Otherwise there would be nothing new to select now would it?
Try to remember this, if you can grasp it.
You can't simply ignore one of the 2 premises of the ToE to eliminate the chance component.

You don't seem to understand that random mutations are not all that random. Random mutations will produce a range of changes. Think of a bell curve. Selection chooses a small range of changes making the random mutations not so random. When you use a strawman, as you just did, you will always lose the argument when the strawman is made clear.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationist video's, so you can dismiss it.
There's not always proof, but one can make an assessment based on evidence which is gathered scientifically.
In this case, God pleads guilty too.

Why can't we do the same for the evolutionary history of life? Why can't we use the direct record of ancestry found in the genomes of living species and the preserved characteristics found in fossil species?