The miracle of God creating the first chicken with eggs inside it

[quote] After we are agreed on the concept of evidence, then we can apply it to God, to prove by evidence present or absent, that He exists or doesn't exist. [/quote]

I’ve already stated my concept of evidence. You refuse to acknowledge it because I used you own argument as a prime example. You want to discuss the concept of evidence, then use your nature god as an example. Skip the straw man
[quote]
yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage



Aren't you going to resume our dialogue on what is evidence?


Here, I will add that man suspects what is the target of his evidence, for example - the target of his evidence is a human and not something non-human.

Imagine this scenario:
An explorer landed on an island he knew to be un-inhabited, because there has never been any report by earlier explorers of an island in that geographical location. He says to himself, "If any human had already been on the island, then he certainly could have left anywhere on the island some man-made objects no longer useful to bring back home." Then he came upon a pair of broken eye-glasses. There, the pair of broken eye-glasses is evidence to the presence earlier of a human on the island.






yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage


We are not getting linked.

I am talking about evidence, without bringing in God for the present.


You keep on and on bringing in God, and there is no evidence for Him according to you.


Can you understand that there has got to be a concept of evidence that applies to every issue where evidence is invoked to prove something exist or not.

After we are agreed on the concept of evidence, then we can apply it to God, to prove by evidence present or absent, that He exists or doesn't exist.

That is why the issue cannot be settled with finality, because theists and atheists don't care to agree on the concept of evidence and how it works.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 12 mins ago

yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage


We are not getting linked.

I am talking about evidence, without bringing in God for the present.


You keep on and on bringing in God, and there is no evidence for Him according to you.


Can you understand that there has got to be a concept of evidence that applies to every issue where evidence is invoked to prove something exist or not.

After we are agreed on the concept of evidence, then we can apply it to God, to prove by evidence present or absent, that He exists or doesn't exist.

That is why the issue cannot be settled with finality, because theists and atheists don't care to agree on the concept of evidence and how it works.
+ 1 · Reply · Translate · 5 hrs ago

DocSavage · M
You seem to be having trouble remembering what was asked, so I’m including the last few threads with each new one.
Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses

I live in Chicago. Around 100 years ago, one of the most famous trials in America, was centered on a pair of eyeglasses found on the ground.
No one ever questioned the fact that they were man made, or someone was at that place, and left them behind.
Suppose the person didn’t ware glasses. Does the fact he has 20/20 mean no one was there ?
M
So, now you want us to prove to you that humans exist too ?
When did anyone here claim that they didn’t ?
Bullshit
The target of the evidence is not Glasses-human
The target of the evidence is existence- god
Existence does not lead to the conclusion
God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger

You can skip the straw man, I’m not biting .
M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


@DocSavage

Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.

Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.

You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.

Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.


You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?


Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
I say:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).

You say:
I’ve answered your question.


Now, I tell you again:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).


In concise words means not more than 35 words, else you are into malingering.







yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence.


---------------------


DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.

-----------------------

DocSavage · M
your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence. -Yrger

That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: Something can not come from Nothing is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 8 hrs ago

DocSavage · M
[@yrger/bonehead
What’s the matter, too few brain cells to make it pass 35 words ? I noticed you’re down from 50. You’re sinking fast.
+ 0 · Reply · 3 hrs ago · Edit ·

DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.
+ 0 · Reply · 54 mins ago · Edit · · Edited: 45 mins ago

DocSavage · M
Bullshit
The target of the evidence is not Glasses-human
The target of the evidence is existence- god
Existence does not lead to the conclusion
God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger

You can skip the straw man, I’m not biting .
M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


@DocSavage

Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.

Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.

You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.

Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.


You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?


Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
+ 0 · Reply · 1 hr ago · Edit · · Edited: 1 hr ago

yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


@DocSavage

Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.

Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.

You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.

Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.


You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?


Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 1 hr ago

yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage


Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.

You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.

Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.


You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?


Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.







your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence. -Yrger

That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: Something can not come from Nothing is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.








DocSavage · M
yrger/bonehead apparently has a short attention span. Now he can’t read threads over 35 words, last time it was 50.
That explains why he needs to copy every post. His mind, such as it is, seems to be losing more ground each day. Brain cells dying at an alarming rate.
Chances of getting anything out of him have gone from slim to none.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 2 hrs ago

DocSavage · M
yrger/bonehead apparently has a short attention span. Now he can’t read threads over 35 words, last time it was 50.
That explains why he needs to copy every post. His mind, such as it is, seems to be losing more ground each day. Brain cells dying at an alarming rate.
Chances of getting anything out of him have gone from slim to none.
+ 0 · Reply · 3 hrs ago · Edit ·
+ 0 · Reply · 8 hrs ago · Edit · · Edited: 8 hrs ago

DocSavage · M
So, now you want us to prove to you that humans exist too ?
When did anyone here claim that they didn’t ?
Bullshit
The target of the evidence is not Glasses-human
The target of the evidence is existence- god
Existence does not lead to the conclusion
God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger

You can skip the straw man, I’m not biting .
M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


@DocSavage

Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.

Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.

You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.

Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

[quote]You don't have an explanation for mankind's existence[/quote]

Existence doesn't need to be explained

The [i]evidence[/i] needs to be explained

(You know... the evidence you don't have)

Fortunately, we have that explanation. It's called the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

We now understand what we are, and how we came to be.

Your silly little god thing isn't needed, especially as [i]you don't have an explanation for its existence[/i]

There’s another point you seem to keep avoiding . Just out of curiosity.
What is you timeline ? Your god wakes up one day decides to make the universe from nothing, just for the hell of it. He himself has no need for it. He doesn’t even live in the same dimension.
Kind of over does it too. 13 billion light years and still expanding.
Then he gets the idea, ( several billion years later ) to create life. So, he picks one little planet. Starts abiogenesis, gets life started. But seems to be uncertain what to populate it with. He begins with single cell creatures, but they don’t appreciate all his effort. So, according to you he sets of evolution. Now he has random mutations, and sends life in every direction all at once.
Now, he gets a bug up his ass, and according to you makes his greatest miracle yet, the chicken ! There are other animals that lay eggs. But this one is his masterpiece. Compared to it, even babies and roses fall short.
Now all of this has occurred over several eons.
If he’s so powerful, why did it take so long. Time and space mean nothing to him. He would be used to instant gratification.
Are you going to do a Ken Ham on us, and claim the world looks a lot older than it actually is ?

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

Apparently your idea of a 'discussion' is to ignore whatever anyone else says, and to merely keep repeating the same unsupported, incoherent, claims over and over before running away.

So much for your silly little 'god' thing

So, now you want us to prove to you that humans exist too ?
When did anyone here claim that they didn’t ?
[quote] Bullshit
The target of the evidence is not Glasses-human
The target of the evidence is existence- god
Existence does not lead to the conclusion
God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger

You can skip the straw man, I’m not biting .
M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


@DocSavage

Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.

Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.

You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.

Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.


You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?


Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.[/quote]
I say:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).

You say:
I’ve answered your question.


Now, I tell you again:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).


In concise words means not more than 35 words, else you are into malingering.







yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence.


---------------------


DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.

-----------------------

DocSavage · M
your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence. -Yrger

That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: Something can not come from Nothing is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 8 hrs ago

DocSavage · M
[@yrger/bonehead
What’s the matter, too few brain cells to make it pass 35 words ? I noticed you’re down from 50. You’re sinking fast.
+ 0 · Reply · 3 hrs ago · Edit ·

DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

[quote]Evolution ultimately implicates God's miraculous power[/quote]

A miracle (magic) requires a violation of the natural laws of the universe.

Evolution doesn't violate the natural laws of the universe, and therefore is [b]not[/b] miraculous.

As always, no gods required

[quote] You use plenty of words but all of them are useless [/quote]

Don’t blame me because they have too many syllables for you to understand.
I asked you what your problem with evolution was. Natural selection is basic , so is mutation. Simple high school biology 101.
Even young earth creationists have to acknowledge it, if they want to get out of high schools. So, what is it, that’s twisting your panties ?

@DocSavage


I say:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).

You say:
I’ve answered your question.


Now, I tell you again:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).


In concise words means not more than 35 words, else you are into malingering.







yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence.


---------------------


DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.

-----------------------

DocSavage · M
your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence. -Yrger

That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: Something can not come from Nothing is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.

Why bother defining evidence. You’ll only “ultimate” back to your god. So it’s pointless. Except for one detail you can not prove.
You insist that god is not subject to your own rule of something coming from nothing. The buck stops with god.
[b]But[/b] there is one characteristic which is [b]not[/b] mandatory. And that is god’s immortality. Your god does [b]not[/b] need to be permanent. Once creation has begun, the process started, god himself is no longer needed.
If he started evolution, the random mutation can go in any direction without guidance. Same with the rest of the universe. Your god, was probably killed at the Big Bang and the universe grew from there.
So, rather than argue ultimate origins. How about showing us your god is still operating and in control. That includes creating chicken, babies , and roses. All of which are self replicating on their own.

@DocSavage


You use plenty of words but all of them are useless, still you foolishly believe that with many vacuous words what is useless to explain evolution, you will make it a fact.



Okay, tell me, does evolution lead to the production of a better species all the time?

And does the previous inferior species die out?


For evolutionists, random mutation leads to natural selection.

There, you guys are invoking nature, and I tell it is the God of nature that creates nature and operates nature.

So, there is no way you fake scientists can escape from God.


[quote]DocSavage · M

@yrger

"You are invoking the socalled theory of evolution, it is a dubious science -Yrger."


I know I’m going to regret this. Evolution, is one of ( if not the most - [i]ipse dixit[/i]) supported theory there is. Not only is there mountains of fossil evidence ([i]gratuitous utterance[/i]). It has been observed both in nature and in laboratory conditions.
Science doesn’t like to call anything absolute. But evolution is the closest you will get to a scientific fact ([i]exaggeration[/i]).
So, since you set it out there , what problem do you have against evolution ([i]you have a problem with dreaming up nonsensical explanation, in order to not face the God creator and operator of everything including me and you[/i]).
That makes it a “dubious science “ ? [b][i](Yes yes yes yes yes . . . )[/i][/b][/quote]

@DocSavage


Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.

You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.

Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.


You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?


Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.







[quote]your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence. -Yrger

That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: Something can not come from Nothing is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.[/quote]








DocSavage · M
yrger/bonehead apparently has a short attention span. Now he can’t read threads over 35 words, last time it was 50.
That explains why he needs to copy every post. His mind, such as it is, seems to be losing more ground each day. Brain cells dying at an alarming rate.
Chances of getting anything out of him have gone from slim to none.

@DocSavage



Aren't you going to resume our dialogue on what is evidence?


Here, I will add that man suspects what is the target of his evidence, for example - the target of his evidence is a human and not something non-human.

Imagine this scenario:
An explorer landed on an island he knew to be un-inhabited, because there has never been any report by earlier explorers of an island in that geographical location. He says to himself, "If any human had already been on the island, then he certainly could have left anywhere on the island some man-made objects no longer useful to bring back home." Then he came upon a pair of broken eye-glasses. There, the pair of broken eye-glasses is evidence to the presence earlier of a human on the island.






yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage


We are not getting linked.

I am talking about evidence, without bringing in God for the present.


You keep on and on bringing in God, and there is no evidence for Him according to you.


Can you understand that there has got to be a concept of evidence that applies to every issue where evidence is invoked to prove something exist or not.

After we are agreed on the concept of evidence, then we can apply it to God, to prove by evidence present or absent, that He exists or doesn't exist.

That is why the issue cannot be settled with finality, because theists and atheists don't care to agree on the concept of evidence and how it works.

@DocSavage


We are not getting linked.

I am talking about evidence, without bringing in God for the present.


You keep on and on bringing in God, and there is no evidence for Him according to you.


Can you understand that there has got to be a concept of evidence that applies to every issue where evidence is invoked to prove something exist or not.

After we are agreed on the concept of evidence, then we can apply it to God, to prove by evidence present or absent, that He exists or doesn't exist.

That is why the issue cannot be settled with finality, because theists and atheists don't care to agree on the concept of evidence and how it works.

[quote] your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence.[/quote]
That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: [b]Something can not come from Nothing[/b] is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.

@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @BibleData @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@DocSavage] [@newjaninev2] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@BiasForAction] [@Abstraction] [@mcane] [@allygator18] [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] [@jehova]


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


I am theist, you are atheists.

What is primarily i.e. essentially the big difference between us?

I have an explanation for mankind's existence, God.

You don't have an explanation for mankind's existence.


[i]"The unexplained life is not worth living."[/i]



Nonetheless, we are agreed that we do have a beginning, is that alright with you?

@DocSavage

I say, "we are agreed that we all mankind whether theists or atheists we do have a beginning, is that alright with you?"

You say, "No, we’re not agreed. We don’t have a beginning, over time cell die and are replaced . Technically, our bodies are no longer the same ones we started with. So biologically we self exist ourselves.

Now I tell you we came from our parents and they from their parents, and on and on and on until ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself.

Ultimately God created us to be so resourceful that we are discussing whether God exists or not.


You atheists do not thinkk in terms of ultimate realities, but only some intermediary phenomenon, like the socalled evolution by random mutation and natural selection.







DocSavage · M
we are agreed that we all mankind whether theists or atheists we do have a beginning, is that alright with you?

No, we’re not agreed. We don’t have a beginning, over time cell die and are replaced . Technically, our bodies are no longer the same ones we started with. So biologically we self exist ourselves.

@DocSavage


From random mutation to natural selection, that is the gist of evolution, and it belies the fact that you atheist evolutionists willy-nilly have to resort to the God of nature, you thus implicate yourselves as recognizig God exists, period.

Egg cells go back much further than chickens, as fish laid eggs long before chickens evolved. If you’re asking about chicken eggs specifically, it depends which animal you define as the first chicken, which would be arbitrary as the evolutionary change from the precursor to “chicken” was gradual.

However, the theory of evolution is not incompatible with religion, as Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and others see no contradiction between belief in God and the theory of evolution as an explanation of observed reality.

@DocSavage


I am still waiting to read [i][b]your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence[/b][/i].









yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage


You say:
Evidence is facts, information , both physical and non physical that support a claim or conclusion.
The greater the greater the claim, the greater evidence you need.

I say:
Evidence is anything existing that leads man to know the existence of another thing.

For example, eye-glasses exist, so when man sees a pair of eye-glasses, he knows that there is or was a human around.


[i][b]Let you give a clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence.
[/b][/i]









DocSavage · M
Evidence is facts, information , both physical and non physical that support a claim or conclusion.
The greater the greater the claim, the greater evidence you need.

You can find a pair of glasses on the road, and assume a person was there at some point. But they could also have dropped out of an Amazon delivery drone. So your evidence is not conclusive.

@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @BibleData @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@DocSavage] [@newjaninev2] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@BiasForAction] [@Abstraction] [@mcane] [@allygator18] [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] [@jehova]


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


You guys are all into diversions from the issue about: "The miracle of God creating the first chicken with eggs inside it."

That implicates that there exists ultimately God the creator and operator of everything that is not God Himself.

To link to the issue, if you be atheists you must produce an alternative to God.

You don't do at all, that is why you are into essentially diversions - useless verbosity for a cover of intellectual [b][i]vacuity[/i][/b].*



*Vacuity [i](noun) [/i]

Lack of thought or intelligence; empty-headedness.
"Full of excitement, I listened to my first student sermon – only to be taken aback by its [i]vacuity[/i]."
Empty space; emptiness.


Similar:
empty-headedness
lack of thought
lack of intelligence
brainlessness
denseness
thickness
vacuousness
vacancy
inaneness
inanity
stupidity

------------

Opposite:
intelligence
depth



[i](Oxford Languages)[/i]

@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @BibleData @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@DocSavage] [@newjaninev2] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@BiasForAction] [@Abstraction] [@mcane] [@allygator18] [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] [@jehova]


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------




You guys are all into diversions from the issue about: "The miracle of God creating the first chicken with eggs inside it."

That implicates that there exists ultimately God the creator and operator of everything that is not God Himself.

To link to the issue, if you be atheists you must produce an alternative to God.

You don't do at all, that is why you are into essentially diversions - useless verbosity for a cover of intellectual vacuity.*



*Vacuity (noun)

Lack of thought or intelligence; empty-headedness.
"Full of excitement, I listened to my first student sermon – only to be taken aback by its vacuity."
Empty space; emptiness.


Similar:
empty-headedness
lack of thought
lack of intelligence
brainlessness
denseness
thickness
vacuousness
vacancy
inaneness
inanity
stupidity

------------

Opposite:
intelligence
depth



[i](Oxford Languages)[/i]

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

Chanting 'god' explains [i][b]absolutely nothing[/b][/i]... it is merely a trivial attempt to explain everything [i]away[/i]. It is academically bankrupt and intellectually threadbare.

The postulation does not even explain itself

@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @BibleData @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@DocSavage] [@newjaninev2] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@BiasForAction] [@Abstraction] [@mcane] [@allygator18] [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] [@jehova] [@TelegramSam]


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------




Hi everyone, you demand evidence, but we must now first concur on what is evidence, othewise it is absurd to continue as we don't agree on what is evidence.


Here is my definition of evidence:

Evidence is anything existing that leads man to know the existence of another thing.

For example, eye-glasses exist, so when man sees a pair of eye-glasses, he knows that there is or was a human around.

Now let you all present your definition of evidence, so that in this way we can and will arrive at an agreed on definition of evidence, in order to determine on the basis of evidence present or not, whether God exists or not.


Keep in mind, you must present your definition of evidence, not go astray with other matters.

And don't say that you gave already your definition, just give it again [b][i]in concise words[/i][/b].

[quote] Evolution is a process, so it needs a processor to create the process and to run the process, ultimately that processor is God.[/quote]

No, wrong again. Evolution is an offshoot of reproduction. The mutations you were complaining about . Imperfect copies. If the variation is beneficial, then the variation is passed on to future generations. If not , it usually dies out. It depends on the conditions.
The process itself simply requires life to do what it always does, grow and multiply. That’s natural selection.

@newjaninev2

I say:
Evolution is a process, so it needs a processor to create the process and to run the process.

You say:
It needs a mechanism... and that mechanism is Natural Selection. No magical entity needed... none whatsoever.


Now I say natural selection necessarily implicates God as the creator and operator of nature, that is why God is the God of nature as also He is the God of supernature.



newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread

Evolution is a process, so it needs a processor to create the process and to run the process

It needs a mechanism... and that mechanism is Natural Selection.

No magical entity needed... none whatsoever.

Would you like to discuss Natural Selection and how it drives evolution?

Or would you prefer to run away againn?

@DocSavage


You say:
Evidence is facts, information , both physical and non physical that support a claim or conclusion.
The greater the greater the claim, the greater evidence you need.

I say:
Evidence is anything existing that leads man to know the existence of another thing.

For example, eye-glasses exist, so when man sees a pair of eye-glasses, he knows that there is or was a human around.


Let you give a clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence.








DocSavage · M
Evidence is facts, information , both physical and non physical that support a claim or conclusion.
The greater the greater the claim, the greater evidence you need.

You can find a pair of glasses on the road, and assume a person was there at some point. But they could also have dropped out of an Amazon delivery drone. So your evidence is not conclusive.

@yrger [quote]You mention evidence, but we must concur on what is evidence, do you have any idea at all, tell me then - what is evidence?[/quote]
I cannot decide whether you are senile or a bot. I have provided a plain text definition of evidence before, but because it was so large, I provided a link to the article, rather than copying and pasting the entirety of the text, and you rejected it. It is not my fault that you still do not comprehend what evidence is.

From my analogies and I am no atheist and I am a Christian - Baptist by denomination. God said let the waters bring forth living things in abundance. God said let the Earth bring forth beast and cattle.
It seems to me that God seeded the Earth with seeds and the Waters of the Earth and the Earth herself sprouted life from these seeds.

Ever wonder why everything that comes into existence on this planet comes from a seed _ trees come from seeds - fish comes from seeds - animals including, humans come from seeds. Now we call them eggs and sperms but in reality they are all seeds and as written in scripture all of these seeds produce after their kind which means they were genetically modified to do so, (using human terminology) by God before he sowed them here on this Earth.

I think the seed came before the chicken.

For the record, the case I mentioned earlier. In which finding eyeglasses on the ground, lead to one of the most famous trials in American history. You still haven’t answered that one either.
Proves, that evidence alone is without value, unless it is interpreted correctly. And subject to testing.
Stop stalling.

@DocSavage


I say:
Sorry, but thanks for mentioning nature, so the God of nature is still ultimately the creator.

You ask:
When did I say “nature” ? Natural as opposed to artificial.


Here (see the last line of text below): The process itself simply requires life to do what it always does, grow and multiply. [i][b]That’s natural selection[/b][/i].




DocSavage · M
Evolution is a process, so it needs a processor to create the process and to run the process, ultimately that processor is God. -Yrger

No, wrong again. Evolution is an offshoot of reproduction. The mutations you were complaining about . Imperfect copies. If the variation is beneficial, then the variation is passed on to future generations. If not , it usually dies out. It depends on the conditions.
The process itself simply requires life to do what it always does, grow and multiply. [b][i]That’s natural selection.
[/i][/b]

According to you, evidence is a pair or eyeglasses. You can’t even follow through on that.
Stick to the subject at hand. You’ve been preaching your god for a bunch of post. What is your evidence ?
You’re the one claiming non physical evidence. Something that can’t be tested. Let have it.

@BlueMetalChick

Ultimately the agent I call God is running the whole business, of creating everything not Himself, and operating them, so non-living things develop into living things and living things develop into various kinds, etc etc etc - that we humans then came about who are now determining whether God exists or not.

God is indeed the one performing all the miracles, like for examples, the miracles of babies and roses in the neighborhood.






BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
I think the answer to the question of whether the chicken or egg came first depends on whether you're specifically referring to chicken eggs. Because egg-laying animals existed many millions of years before chickens did, but chicken eggs specifically contain a protein that is only found in their ovaries.

@newjaninev2

Do anything you care to do, but say something definite, like how the material-physical is what, eternal?

Then I will ask you what is the ultimate composition of the material-physical universe?

It is particle, isn't it? And particles need ultimately the God creator and operator to produce them and put them together and operate them - and that is the physical-material universe, a composite lump of material-physical existence.

You should know that because at one time you claimed to be informed about particle physices,* then you deleteted that post i.e. that statement.


[quote]newjaninev2 · 51-55, F

Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread

Apparently your idea of a 'discussion' is to ignore whatever anyone else says, and to merely keep repeating the same unsupported, incoherent, claims over and over before [b][i]running away[/i][/b] (That's your incantation, it does not work - hahahahaha, I am always around and as also DocSage, but you, not. Atheists practise incantation.)

So much for your silly little 'god' thing[/quote]

*Particle physics or high energy physics is the study of fundamental particles and forces that constitute matter and radiation. The fundamental particles in. . . [i](Wikipedia)[/i]

@DocSavage

Sorry, but thanks for mentioning nature, so the God of nature is still ultimately the creator of life etc and the universe and mankind and everything else that is not God Himself.

[b][i]That’s natural selection. -DocSavage[/i][/b]


-----------------


DocSavage · M
Evolution is a process, so it needs a processor to create the process and to run the process, ultimately that processor is God. -Yrger

No, wrong again. Evolution is an offshoot of reproduction. The mutations you were complaining about . Imperfect copies. If the variation is beneficial, then the variation is passed on to future generations. If not , it usually dies out. It depends on the conditions.
The process itself simply requires life to do what it always does, grow and multiply. That’s natural selection.

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

yrger just posted a case in point 😂

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

[i]You still haven't given a reasoned and germane response to this, so I thought a timely reminder might help...[/i]

[quote]that is the gist of evolution[/quote]

Evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles.

That's it.

Nothing more.

Nothing up my sleeve or tucked into my bra strap.

Never mind 'gist'

This is a clear, concise, precise, and specific definition.

[b]Evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles.[/b]

If that, or any part of it, confused you, or is not clear, just say so, and I'll work through it with you

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

To be a miracle (magic) it needs to violate the natural laws of the universe.

The evolution of chickens does not violate the natural laws of the universe, and tells us that the egg came first.

I have offered to explain to you in detail why this must be so, but you act as if neither the explanation nor my offer exist.

It appears that your search for the truth is actually a search for reinforcement of your own unsupported imaginings, and that consequently you are merely wasting everyone's by indulging your personal needs.

@DocSavage


In re on working together as to agree on a common definition of what is evidence, things have gotten so obsfucating owing to your incoherent verbosity.

So, I move that we start from the beginning again.


[b][i]As you are the party demanding evidence for the existence of God, it behooves you to be first to define what is evidence.[/i][/b]






yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

Okay, let's start from the beginning again.

[b][i]As you are the party demanding evidence for the existence of God, it behooves you to be first to define what is evidence.[/i][/b]

So, I am waiting, and be thriftly with words, too much words just show you to have nothing definite except incoherncy of your thoughts.

@DocSavage

You still have not mentioned what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence work.

All you talk about are in your mind, you must go to the concrete world of reality outside your mind, and tell me how you use evidence to come to the existence of something you prove to exist in objective reality outside your mind, with something in reality outside your mind that is your evidence, and this evidence must be also outside your mind.

You do understand that the human and the evidence the human uses and the target of the evidence the human wants to prove to exist by way of evidence, they are all connected.

@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @BibleData @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@DocSavage] [@newjaninev2] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@BiasForAction] [@Abstraction] [@mcane] [@allygator18] [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] [@jehova]


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


[@jehova]
Evolution depends on a process in nature, nature depends on ultimately something or someone in charge, otherwise nothing works.

Consider your nose, it stays put on your face, if nothing or no one is in charge it will fall off your face uncertainly.

Evolution ultimately implicates God's miraculous power.

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

[quote]you must produce an alternative to God[/quote]

Why? Merely chanting 'god did it' explains absolutely nothing... it is merely a trivial attempt to explain everything away. It is academically bankrupt and intellectually threadbare.

The postulation does not even explain itself

Your god is merely a personal fiction you use to comfort yourself... a self-indulgence.

@yrger [quote]You guys are all into diversions from the issue about: "The miracle of God creating the first chicken with eggs inside it."[/quote]
You have yet to provide any evidence which proves this alleged miracle.
[quote]To link to the issue, if you be atheists you must produce an alternative to God.[/quote]
Why? What evidence is there for the necessity of a creator?

@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @BibleData @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@DocSavage] [@newjaninev2] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@BiasForAction] [@Abstraction] [@mcane] [@allygator18] [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] [@jehova]


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


My position is that ultimately God is the creator and operator of everything that is not God Himself.

What about you all guys here, what is ultimately the source of everything?

If you want to address me, do it this way: "[@yrger]".


(And say it in few words.)

Niether of course. Chickens evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution doesn't have a first; it's a slow progression .

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

[quote]Evolution is a process, so it needs a processor to create the process and to run the process[/quote]

It needs a [i]mechanism[/i]... and [b]that mechanism is Natural Selection[/b].

No magical entity needed... none whatsoever.

[b]Would you like to discuss Natural Selection and how it drives evolution?[/b]

Or would you prefer to run away againn?

@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @BibleData @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@DocSavage] [@newjaninev2] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@BiasForAction] [@Abstraction] [@mcane] [@allygator18] [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] [@jehova]


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


I am theist, you are atheists.

What is primarily i.e. essentially the big difference between us?

I have an explanation for mankind's existence, God.

You don't have an explanation for mankind's existence.


[i]"The unexplained life is not worth living."[/i]

@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @BibleData @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@DocSavage] [@newjaninev2] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@BiasForAction] [@Abstraction] [@mcane] [@allygator18] [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] [@jehova] [@TelegramSam]


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


[@DocSavage]

Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.

[quote]Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.

You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.

Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.


You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?


Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.[/quote]

[quote] As you are the party demanding evidence for the existence of God, it behooves you to be first to define what is evidence.
[/quote]
Wrong again bonehead. You made the claim, the burden of proof comes with it. Evidence according to you, is something that shows the claim.
You have have presented nothing that in any way leads to the conclusion of a self existing, permanent spiritual being that is in control or is operating all things other than itself.
Your eyeglasses example is a pathetic straw man. To avoid answering.
A straight forward question. Not working.

@LeopoldBloom



Evolution depends on a process in nature, nature depends on ultimately something or someone in charge, otherwise nothing works.

Consider your nose, it stays put on your face, if nothing or no one is in charge it will fall off your face uncertainly.

Evolution ultimately implicates God's miraculous power.

[b]Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread[/b]

[quote]God miraculously created the first chicken with eggs already inside it[/quote]

A miracle (magic) requires a violation of the natural laws of the universe.

Evolution doesn't violate the natural laws of the universe, and therefore is not miraculous.

[b]As always, no gods required[/b]