As I said before, please quote me. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm open to being corrected.
OK, I'll go through every point on the main debate and assign a number code to the error you've made:
1. misrepresented the data
2. claimed the data is wrong (without providing any evidence to substantiate your claim)
3. claimed the data leads to a different conclusion than the experts say it does (which only you in your magical brain know, because goodness knows people who have dedicated years of their life to a given subject are far less educated about it than you and the power of your magical thinking)
4. claimed there is no data, or
5. denied that the data you are presented is actually relevant (when it is, but for reasons only your magical brain knows, you think it's not)
In rereading your comments, also adding code 6: redefining terms to mean the opposite of what they actually mean and using your own weird definitions to "prove" things are "wrong" without providing any evidence.
I'm doing it with that thread and not this one because that thread is shorter (2 pages vs 13).
The next thing we need to clarify is the understanding of "science". I don't want to get into petty, meaningless, misguided arguments about "proofs" and "prove" and certainty in science. Some atheists are simply deluded and not living in the real world when they come out with crap like "you can't prove anything in science". Error 3
I like the Wikipedia definition of science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Error 1
To clarify, when I am talking about proving something scientifically I am talking about being able to do experiments and make real observations in order to verify explanations, ideas, hypotheses, etc. I fully understand that what we currently observe could turn out to be false later on or change so we can never know the absolute truth of something. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that we can be certain of things based on the observations we have made. Error 3
For example we are certain that the earth orbits the sun based on the modern observations we have. Later on that may turn out to be false (and most likely it will when geocentrism is proven to be correct) but it's reasonable to assume that based on or current understanding that the heliocentric model is correct as it explains a lot of things. Error 3
When I use words such as "prove", "proof", "certain", etc. I am using the meanings/definitions as described in the public dictionaries. Error 3
I tend not to use personal private meanings which some deluded individuals use who think that you can't prove anything in science. Error 3
I think the problem is with understanding word usage/meaning. If you look up the definition "prove" in the common dictionary it simply means to demonstrate the truth of something using evidence. Error 3
One of the most obvious evidence of God is the scientific fact that life cannot be created by humans from scratch, from atoms and molecules. Error 4 Numerous scientific experiments have been done are being done and have been planned to create life from scratch.
Generally it is considered that life is a "naturally" occurring phenomena, especially by atheists. Error 6However there is a bit more to this which most people don't consider. Life is not a natural phenomena. When I say it is not a natural phenomena I mean it is not something replicated by humans using natural processes. Error 6 For example we know that if we combine hydrogen and oxygen we get water. This is an example of a natural processes. Error 6 We are also able form other more complex molecules by using our understanding of chemistry and physics. These complex molecules and structures are created using the natural laws of physics and chemistry that we know of.
However the creation of life has proven to be extremely difficult. Numerous experiments show that forming the simplest known living organism is not possible using the current technology and understanding we have. Error 4 and subsequently error 5 Experiments show that certain structures are simply not stable or just don't behave the way we expect them to. Error 4 Now if life was truly a naturally occurring phenomena Error 6 then it should be straight forward to replicate it just as we can replicate complex molecules Error 6.
Now I know some will say that we may be able to create life in the future from scratch and that is a valid point. Error 4 However the fact still stands today that humans are not able to create life from scratch.Error 4 This also needs to be taken a step further to investigate why it's not possible to create life. Extra error: jumping from faulty premise to faulty conclusion
As a believer in God I have to accept that God created absolutely everything. The earth, heavens, gravity, light, "nothing", animals, water, humans, plants, trees, etc. Problem is if everything is created by God then how do I distinguish between what is creation and what is not creation. I can't do that since there is no such as a non created entity or concept in my reality. Yet God says look around and learn to know that God exists and that he created everything.
In order to find evidence of God most people are looking for something supernatural. Something that does not conform to our known understanding of the universe or what we refer to as "natural". So for example if I drop a pen it will fall until it hits the ground. We give that phenomena a name. We call it gravity and can do all sorts of experiments to learn more about it. As a believer I understand that it's God who created gravity (as well as the pen...more on that later). Another less thoughtful believer may just say it was the will of Allah which made pen hit the ground and if you don't believe it then you are going to hell. Convoluted and rambling error 4
However if I drop a pen and it becomes suspended in mid air or maybe even goes up then we'd consider that as being supernatural or very unusual since it doesn't conform to what we see and know around us. non sequitur: this does not matter because this does not happen; but if it did, there are other causes we could examine, eg magnetism or invisible, inaudible (to humans) sound waves This will be confirmation for the believer that yes God exists and they have just witnessed a miracle, especially if I had said something like "God will suspend this pen in mid air". Some weak agnostics or weak non-believer may be convinced that yes they have just observed a miracle and that God really does exist. They then may incorrectly go about blindly following the believers and accept everything they say and begin to call themselves Sunnis, Shias, Salafis, Christians, etc. However there may be more cautious, skeptical atheists who will want to investigate more to make sure there isn't a "natural" explanation or that it's not some kind of David Copperfield stunt.
Now if the phenomena of the pen being suspended in air only happened once even though it had been witnessed by thousands/millions of people there would still be some doubt in the non-believers mind that there could have been a natural explanation or that it was a hoax. This is perfectly reasonable thinking. So let's assume we witnessed pens being suspended mid air all over the world at random times or even during certain times of the day. We did thousands of experiments to figure out why but were not able to figure out why the pens suspend themselves in mid-air and are not able to replicate the phenomena.
For the first generation of observers this is a new phenomena and is strange. For subsequent generations this would be classed as a natural phenomena since it has been happening for ages and it's nothing special for them. They've grown up seeing and knowing about this and it has become a part of the natural world.
So, the dilemma is how do we determine whether something is part of the natural world? How do determine life is part of the natural world we know.
Extra error (which has now become error 7): jumping from faulty premise to faulty conclusion
For me it comes down to determining the base line. About distinguishing what we have power to do and what is beyond our capability. This is the tricky part. It's tricky because history has shown that humans have progressed to learn more about the universe they live and things which were deemed impossible/unimaginable are now possible and have come into existence. This I believe is one of the areas we need to understand and convince ourselves of in order to have tangible evidence of God. Another long, rambling error 4
Try thinking about whether life is made up of mysterious elements that we have no knowledge of or control over. Error 1--no it isn't Science shows Error 1 we know exactly what we are made of and up to a certain point how it works. Error 7
I think we can go further and be able to get to point where we can say that it's very unlikely for life to have come into existence through natural processes. non sequitur: the universe/multiverse is incredibly, maybe infinitely, huge and so the incredibly improbable happens all the time, and it would be more incredible if the improbably never happened. On top of that we can also reach a point where we can say that it's not possible to create life through artificial means with the current technology we have. Error 5--I know I presented this data, and you rejected it without explanation and keep posting the same claim
Having the argument that something may be possible to do in the future is not scientific and is just conjecture. Error 5 and non sequitur We need to deal with the here and now. Whether we accept the current science and conclusions is up to the individual considering it. This is false. Truth does not depend on your belief in it, truth is independent. Some may be convinced easily others may never be convinced and die with those thoughts and opinions. non sequitur: the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to the truth of that thing; also, appeal to your magic brain.
Like I said before, the interesting point is not that we can't create life it's why we can't. Error 5 and 7
A related point is how do you confirm that being who claims to be God is in fact God. You see a being covered in light, with billions of angels around him. Are you convinced that he is God or do you need some further evidence? Assuming you know that you're not hallucinating why should this be assumed how do you confirm that this being has infinite power and knowledge why should this be assumed to be a characteristic of a god? How do you measure those things given that you have limited capabilities? There either needs to be a level of reasonable observations Error 6 that you can make and be convinced Error 6 or you will never be convinced non sequitur: truth is not dependent on who believes it, truth must be sought independently and judged on its merits.
I accept my definition/explanations of natural are confusing. I will try to explain.
As a believer I believe that everything is created. Absolutely everything that you can observe or imagine is creation. God has made our reality such that we can distinguish between what God is capable of doing and what we humans are capable of doing. This is so that we can use science to confirm his existence. I don't think it's correct to say that the evidence of God is the supernatural as there kind of is no such thing. The supernatural is just things that we don't understand and/or doesn't happen all the time. Error 6
If we take the example of life Error 6 we know what life is made up of and how it works however we are not able to create it ourselves even though we have the capabilities of manipulating atoms and molecules Error 4. If I called life supernatural Error 6 then it doesn't sound right since there is an abundance of life.
Maybe if i referred to things created by God as divinely inspired may help?
Where did I say that? You missed it when I said several times that everything is created by God.
Let me use the analogy of a role playing video game in a virtual world such as GTA. You'll understand this a lot better if you're a software developer/programmer. You design the video game. You have to write all that is possible and that can happen in the virtual world. You set the gravity, the size of the world, what a player can and cannot do, what the player looks like, what emotions they can feel, what is good, what is bad, etc. Now the players of the video game are all limited to what has been given to them however you as the software developer can do as you please in the virtual world as you can change gravity, the things in the world like shape, colour, texture, etc. anything. Players can lose lives, you have the power to give them life as many times as you want. You have no fear or worry in that virtual world as you can recreate everything in an instant. So if certain players decide to do evil and break the rules (which you have defined and told them about) what is the worst they can do? They can't do anything which is permanent since you have the power to reverse it or make it better than before. If those bad players decide to destroy a country which is populated by thousands of other players you can simply recreate that country in an instant. non sequitur but there is an important point you are missing here: although we may have already created computer programs that are alive (like computer viruses, which are likely alive in the same way that biological viruses are alive: they can reproduce themselves, they can interact with their environment, some can change over time to adapt to threats), we have probably not yet created computer programs that are fully sentient in the way that we are. However, if we had, would we allow the kinds of atrocities and abuses that God allows in our world? Would we create or allow whatever the equivalent of spina bifida, childhood cancer, pedophilia, murder, and other pointless suffering would be for them? It's different to run a program like the sims than it is to run a world with sentient beings, because sentient beings can experience psychological harm, whereas an automaton cannot.
The question then become more about how you want players to behave in your virtual world. If you tell them to behave and they refuse to do so you can either change their abilities so they can no longer destroy things, kick them out of the game, replace them, etc. Are you really concerned about them or the players which are behaving the way you want them to behave. Those that listen to you you may want to reward them. Those that go that extra step and actually do some difficult things just to please you you may want to give them an extra reward. Going back to my previous point, the god you believe in is less moral than we are.
Yes, you can't control gravity. Error 4--you can't make a cosmological constant like gravity go away but by applying a lot of energy, you can create temporary environments where an individual within them will temporarily experience higher gravity or lower gravity--eg vomit comet for the experience of 0 G and fighter jets for 2-5 or higher G As in you can't make things float by suspending the laws of gravity Error 6. Just because gravity is all over the place does not make it natural Error 6. Again it comes down to understanding "natural". Error 6
Can humans create life from scratch? Error 5 Should it be possible for humans to create life from scratch? non sequitur Is life created through natural processes? Error 6 You can test all of this. Error 4 Feel free to use "God of gaps" for that. Those gaps are forever increasing lie they are not getting any smaller lie.
The above links is what I'll use as the reference to evolution and human evolution.
Generally the two most notable scientific evidences of common ancestry are fossils and DNA. Lots of fossils have been collected and cataloged. Lots of DNA has been studied. The media unimportant and irrelevant
and scientists describe these as solid irrefutable evidence lie
of evolution. They portray evolution to be a fact true, but still error 3
and that if you deny it then you are denying science lie and irrelevant
. Nothing could be further from the truth Error 2
. Some of the best known scientists were and are religious irrelevant--truth still doesn't depend on who believes it
Anyway, the first question any reasonable person or scientist should/must ask is how fossils and DNA support common ancestry. Error 3
First you need to define what common ancestry is. The basics, the fundamentals, the most obvious things about common ancestry or common descent as described by trusty ol' Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent
Common descent as defined by Wikipedia is "Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor". What Wikipedia does not mention explicitly is that the process/mechanism of common descent is sexual/asexual reproduction between a chain related living organisms. irrelevant non sequitur--wikipedia is not scientific literature, nor is it a comprehensive examination of any topic
This is the most crucial process that is taken for granted lie
, accepted implicitly by scientists and believers of evolution/common decent Errors 3, 4 AND 5--you're on a roll here
. So what evidence do we have that certain populations of living organisms are/were inter-fertile and actually reproduced with one another non sequitur--common descent doesn't mean that current species can interbreed, it means that in the past, the ancestors of two species were the same, and that because of some factor, the species differentiated into two families. For example, you and your cousins share a common ancestor, whether or not you share common descendants.
. The evidence that is cited is fossils and DNA. Tons of fossils and DNA will be thrown at the sceptical scientist who is this?
and poor religious person who is this?
and they will often be brow beaten by whom?
into believing it non sequitur--truth STILL does not depend on who believes it
So here's the question how do fossils and DNA prove that certain living organisms are able to reproduce with one another? Error 6
The scientific fact, undeniable truth is that fossils and DNA do NOT provide evidence that certain living organisms are able to reproduce with one another. Error 7
If there is any scientist or science paper which can prove this then please cite me the research.
I will leave you with that for now as I'm sure there's going to be some back and forth clarification of the above before reality sets in and the atheists succumb to the truth. lol