Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Angrboda]

---

The failure of evolution as an explanation is not in itself evidence for design.  That would be an argument from ignorance.  Try again.

You are the one claiming that evolution is wrong and therefore god, not me. Stop ridiculing your own arguments, its.........ridiculous.  
Why do theists bring up evolution even as topic in a thread about evidence for a god, mhm? Evolution could be wrong with or without a god. Gods can be real with or without evolution.

Troll harder.

Excuse me?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It doesn't necessarily make anything wrong.  But it doesn't guarantee that everything within a study is conclusive.  Even when we're mostly certain of something, there is still room for error or adding new variables.  We may also see journal articles that conflict.  In which case, often you'll see additional studies that attempt to clarify the relationship(s).

 So... The information/whatever is not wrong... Just not 'Right' enough for you, then?

So... what does something need/take for it to be 'Right' by yourself?

Just curious as to where the bar height is.

Not at work.

I don't want to sound insulting here, but have you heard of the all-or-nothing fallacy?  It's assuming that one thing has to go one way or another.  Two options, and nothing else.  I would suggest that it varies.  Often when you do a study, there is a mathematical value given to explain the relationship, and to what degree we believe that value can be applied to real world conditions.  I'm sure you've heard of the terms "reliability" and "validity."  I'm most cases, nobody is going to come up with 100 percent certainty that there can't be more, or even less.

I don't have a set standard for something to be "Right" by myself, and even if I did, it would likely only be relevant to me since I would be the determining factor.  Scientifically though, we use epistemology.  It's the study of how we know things.  Of course even that is not fully agreed upon among those in the scientific community.  It's okay though, because we're allowed to get things wrong.  Sometimes it's the errors that lead us to the next great fact. 

But just for the sake of trying to answer your question.  The error also exists as a fact.  "If I do it this way, I'm not going to get the right result."  It's just not the fact I had hoped to find, but it brings me one step closer by being able to rule out one thing that wasn't significant to the matter at hand.

When is something right by you?

[Deesse23]

You are the one claiming that evolution is wrong and therefore god, not me. Stop ridiculing your own arguments, its.........ridiculous.  
Why do theists bring up evolution even as topic in a thread about evidence for a god, mhm? Evolution could be wrong with or without a god. Gods can be real with or without evolution.

Troll harder.

Excuse me?

Was directed at the troll, sorry. Should have cut out your part of the nested quote.

[Dmitry1983]

Evolution could be wrong without a god.

So how would you explain life?

[Deesse23]

Evolution could be wrong without a god.

So how would you explain life?

Why should i explain life, in a thread about evidence for a god? I am not the one claiming there is a god. I am not the one fallaciously claiming "evolution wrong, therefore design (by god, lets be a little bit honest here, shall we?) ".


Read the title of the thread, please: "Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?"

Well, do you?

[Rahn127]

So how would you explain life?

If I said "Life has always existed" you would dismiss that based upon what we have scientifically discovered about life as we know it on this planet.

And saying "Life has always existed" doesn't really explain anything does it.

So when I ask - "How do you explain the existence of god" ? the usual answer is "Well, god has always existed."

Do you see how that doesn't really explain anything ?

We know life hasn't always existed because we have evidence of life. We have evidence of biological change over time. As we look back in the fossil record, we see the various stages of life. There were no kangaroos 2 billion years ago.

"How do you explain kangaroos" ?
Do you think they were simply created one day ?
Is that any kind of explanation ?

Experiments show that if you recreate the early chemical composition on Earth from billions of years ago and then add an electric charge to reproduce lightning, complex amino acids will form from inorganic chemicals.

We don't know exactly how abiogenesis works, but we are working on it.

[Amarok]

It's not an excuse it's how it works sorry the universe is inconveniencing you . And evolution has been observed and there is tons of evidence for it . And no scientists don't demand you take there word for it . And lastly evolution isn't about origins .

---

No it's not

Calling something "science" doesn't make it science.  On that note, we might as well assume the Lemmings to be scientists.

Yep that's how it is, just follow what the one in front of me said, next one in line, same thought because it would be "foolish" not to listen to the first two.  Next one, well it would even make sense in light of the first three, and four, and five, and...  Oh look, there's a cliff.  "They're so smart, so if they fall off it must be cool."

Unfortunately for the poor lemmings, they didn't have the luxury of millions or billions of years to become sufficient.  Just a product of the environment.  RIP.

Same thing you here frequently from atheists.  "We're just a product of the environment."  Yep, that's what the Lemmings thought too.

Ironically, for the Lemmings to survive their environment, there needs to be an external source intelligent enough to ensure their environment is sufficient.

1. No the fact that it's done by scientists in labs and has been a corner stone of biology for over 150 years and remains the scientific  consensus for the diversity of life say so .

2. Lemmings don't leap off cliffs that's myth and any video of them doing so was staged and lemmings have not been around for millions or billions of years . Your understanding of evolution is childish .

3. Their actually doesn't need to be intelligence to produce an environment that 's just an assertion.

---

Evolution could be wrong without a god.

So how would you explain life?

Argument from ignorance

[Peebothuhlu]

I don't want to sound insulting here, but have you heard of the all-or-nothing fallacy?  It's assuming that one thing has to go one way or another.  Two options, and nothing else.  I would suggest that it varies.  Often when you do a study, there is a mathematical value given to explain the relationship, and to what degree we believe that value can be applied to real world conditions.  I'm sure you've heard of the terms "reliability" and "validity."  I'm most cases, nobody is going to come up with 100 percent certainty that there can't be more, or even less.

I don't have a set standard for something to be "Right" by myself, and even if I did, it would likely only be relevant to me since I would be the determining factor.  Scientifically though, we use epistemology.  It's the study of how we know things.  Of course even that is not fully agreed upon among those in the scientific community.  It's okay though, because we're allowed to get things wrong.  Sometimes it's the errors that lead us to the next great fact. 

But just for the sake of trying to answer your question.  The error also exists as a fact.  "If I do it this way, I'm not going to get the right result."  It's just not the fact I had hoped to find, but it brings me one step closer by being able to rule out one thing that wasn't significant to the matter at hand.

When is something right by you?

 Nope, haven't heard that one. Thank'e.

Soooo... lots of words again. Lots of exposition.

For me?
Something is right when the information/explanation is 'Good enough'.
Or, when reality is 'Right there'.
My experiances and the things I've taken in over a good amount of years all matches up and seems pretty integated (The right word will come to me when I'm no where near a keyboard)

Of course the "But, how do you trust your senses?" question might ear its ugly head.

To which I reply, "I don't."

I know my senses are damaged/below par. We've enough history of what at what level a human's sensors operate to have a base line. Mine aren't at that line/level.

It's a bugger, in'it?

Now... we'll possibly roll back to "But... How do you 'Think' about thw world?" (Again, the correct term eludes my addled brain/mind)

To which... I haven't got a good descriptor yet. I, know little to nothing of the realm of phylosophy hence a label such as 'Nihlist' or 'Realist' or 'Fredist' and such are just that to me.

Words with little to meaning that I fully understand or comprehend.

Do I think reality is 'Real'?     Yes.

To which will point and decry 'circular' something or other to do with reasoning.

Uhm... that's not a statement of 'reasoning'. That is simply a single, stand alone question followed by as short and concise andwer as I can give.

Unfortunately, my current time is short and my ramblings must come to a halt for now.

Untill we post again.

Not at work.

[Mr.wizard]

These threads always go the same way, Atheists ask for evidence of god, Theists try to poke holes in evolution or they try and to define evidence in such a way that anything would count as evidence.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I don't want to sound insulting here, but have you heard of the all-or-nothing fallacy?  It's assuming that one thing has to go one way or another.  Two options, and nothing else.  I would suggest that it varies.  Often when you do a study, there is a mathematical value given to explain the relationship, and to what degree we believe that value can be applied to real world conditions.  I'm sure you've heard of the terms "reliability" and "validity."  I'm most cases, nobody is going to come up with 100 percent certainty that there can't be more, or even less.

I don't have a set standard for something to be "Right" by myself, and even if I did, it would likely only be relevant to me since I would be the determining factor.  Scientifically though, we use epistemology.  It's the study of how we know things.  Of course even that is not fully agreed upon among those in the scientific community.  It's okay though, because we're allowed to get things wrong.  Sometimes it's the errors that lead us to the next great fact. 

But just for the sake of trying to answer your question.  The error also exists as a fact.  "If I do it this way, I'm not going to get the right result."  It's just not the fact I had hoped to find, but it brings me one step closer by being able to rule out one thing that wasn't significant to the matter at hand.

When is something right by you?

 Nope, haven't heard that one. Thank'e.

Soooo... lots of words again. Lots of exposition.

For me?
Something is right when the information/explanation is 'Good enough'.
Or, when reality is 'Right there'.
My experiances and the things I've taken in over a good amount of years all matches up and seems pretty integated (The right word will come to me when I'm no where near a keyboard)

Of course the "But, how do you trust your senses?" question might ear its ugly head.

To which I reply, "I don't."

I know my senses are damaged/below par. We've enough history of what at what level a human's sensors operate to have a base line. Mine aren't at that line/level.

It's a bugger, in'it?

Now... we'll possibly roll back to "But... How do you 'Think' about thw world?" (Again, the correct term eludes my addled brain/mind)

To which... I haven't got a good descriptor yet. I, know little to nothing of the realm of phylosophy hence a label such as 'Nihlist' or 'Realist' or 'Fredist' and such are just that to me.

Words with little to meaning that I fully understand or comprehend.

Do I think reality is 'Real'?     Yes.

To which will point and decry 'circular' something or other to do with reasoning.

Uhm... that's not a statement of 'reasoning'. That is simply a single, stand alone question followed by as short and concise andwer as I can give.

Unfortunately, my current time is short and my ramblings must come to a halt for now.

Untill we post again.

Not at work.

Thanks for sharing and your statements were fair.  I think you're on the right track with a lot of this.  Sometimes we don't know things.  Actually a lot of times.