Summations Only

It's a good point.The failures of science are logical, too.Even to proceed with a natural theory,(in regards to origins and designed life) logically you are not stating your full assumptions, that you have completely removed the very best possible answer to all such problems, an all-wise mind. Logically, this can be shown to be the potentially best answer, in many, many ways. To remove that premise alone means that your inferences can be skewed, logically.You sum it up succinctly in the phrase, "It's just science's secularistic bent, so as to avoid any accountability to a higher authority."Of course, it's not a statement a none-believer can fully grasp. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You are the evolutionists perfect mascot, the perfect stereotype.They praised me the same when I became evolutionist for a time. Not that I had achieved anything of any intellectual credence, I was actually just in a state of depression, confusion and doubt.When I was evolutionist I was far more ignorant than I am now, but sure - I got a lot of pats on the back, naturally, at a place like this.You might have been an idiot. The point is that you can be a creationist idiot, or an ignorant evolutionist idiot, I have experienced both clever creationists, knowledgeable and brilliant, and evolutionists that are complete ignoramuses and vice-versa.I don't think becoming an atheist is an achievement, it is a matter of the heart, not the intellect.

I applaud your first statement, it is an honest one.The second statement, you have to be a mature believer to fully understand what it means. It is nothing like a conspiracy, it is a matter of biblical understanding.The bible tells us there are only two forces at work in this world. That is God, and His will, and sin and the enemy.Evolutionary scientists, atheists, secularists, do not have the Holy Spirit, they can be completely honest, think they are completely correct, and yet be totally ignorant of how the history of the world has been influenced by the enemy, as the enemy wants to de-face and destroy God's image, in any clever way possible.Even to disbelieve in God can lead to realities in this world, influences that lead to other things.It is a bit like the book by C.S.Lewis, the Screwtape Letters.If I ask you to do a small thing, make me a bearing, and send it to me, you can be completely ignorant that I am building a machine to kill you and your family.You are seeing this from a very un-enlightened point of view which can not be explained easily to a none-believer, as you have a veil on your eyes. Even innocent people have this veil. This world was created by God. Just looking at this world, the bible tells us, gives us no excuse.When people like Charles Lyell, the birther of uniformatarianism, said he wanted to remove Moses from science, he might not have realized just how motivated he was to do that. Darwin, because of the death of his daughter, might not have known how much he wanted to answer the problem by ridding God from the picture.These tiny occurrences had major historical implications. Can you honestly say that if people did not doubt God, that science today would be the same?That first statement you made is vital - science is too small for origins.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

But that is an answer you start with. You start with an answer, that the creation can be explained without God. You are dismissing what 100% of the evidence shows, that there is a creator. The negative is also a conclusion, it is not neutral. But why tell you anything, you don't listen to anything that I state, it becomes futile to talk to someone when they do this. I have presented many sound examples of a consequent given an antecedant, of, "If there is a God then". If there is a God we would expect to see good design. I have shown this. Saying I have not shown this again and again, Jar, will not prove anything because it is a fallacy called ad nauseum.Have you understood what evidence is yet? Did you read what I wrote about confirmation evidence, falsification evidence, tautologous evidence etc?You state the same things ad nauseum, as though by stating them, the same, every time, again and again, proves something.This is the fallacy of ad nauseum. You don't actually provide an argument, you just say the same thing, and this way you can never be wrong.You can stick your fingers in your ears and say, "no evidence, no evidence, no evidence" to my posts a thousand times, but be under no delusions, logically you have not shown anything, all you have done it shown that you want to propose a lie about me, therefore I can conclude that there is no truth in you, nor the desire for it.Please stop stating false things about me without debating, or I will have to take steps to get you banned as a spammer.I GET that you are against me, and everything I say - okay, you have made your point, please now just do not state anything, if there is no information in those statements.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I agree, I just think that the theory of evolution and chemical evolution, are not neutral.Facts are indeed facts, I never dispute them. The ToE is not a fact. It is a factual theory, it deals in facts such as mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc....Logically, and scientifically, a theory is not allowed to be a fact because of the rules of falsification.I think these theories go too far, they are a MASSIVE stretch of the imagination and they favour the negative, that there is not a literal creator, which is a logical fallacy, you can't conclude that and then proceed logically, or you will always and ONLY ever infer a skewed conclusion. Science should stick to what it can prove, not what it can't in the least. People just aren't stupid, no matter how sophisticated the evolution theories, the facts show complete designs, complete worlds and a complete universe with viable laws. We do not see an evolving universe, we see a finished one.Now breathing in oxygen and out carbon dioxide, that's fine, science can handle that as such things are factually experimentally shown to be parsimonious without God, they are not show to be caused without God.

No, it is not without meaning because you don't understand logic.Neutrally, you start with a position the organisms do not require a literal designer. You can only start with that negative.Darwin did not arrive at an evolutionary conclusion, without including the premise that there was a God-designer not involved. Logically, you can only conclude this in order to proceed.That you don't understand this doesn't mean that my assertions are empty. From experience, I know that you do not understand why what I say is correct, you have supplied me with enough evidence that you are not able to understand the points I am making, and you put your fingers in your ears and state the same thing."You have not. You have not shown, you must do this and that!."Stating those things does not mean I have not provided. I have provided, you have not understood, that's all. You start with the assumption that organisms were not designed by God, you start with an un-stated premise that there is not actual, direct, special creation.There is plenty of evidence for this. You state there isn't, I state there is. I show and explain what evidence is, painstakingly, you show nothing and simply state the same thing.That's good spamming, but that's all.

Good question, also a massive question mate, including the problem of evil, dissecting the different religions etc......I made a topic for "good designs", your question is a vast one, so I could only talk/explain about good designs. But look at some other topics, I have hit on some of the differences.