Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

What if we will never have an explanation for such things as how an eye or an appendage came into existence from not being an eye or an appendage? Where does that leave us?

It manifests the fact that Evolutionism is not nearly the "scientific" think it purports to be. That's for sure. And in the wake of things like recent false prophecies from "climate science" advocates and the Fauci scandal, I think we do well to be alert to the false invocation of "settled science." It is often a ruse to sponsor the demand that we do not investigate a shaky theory too much.

Does that leave us with any knowledge at all,...

Of course. Evolutionist propaganda is just one thing, a tiny compartment amidst the vast quantity of things we know. If it falls, it costs us not much. In fact, if a false theory is occupying space in our stock of knowledge, its defeat and expulsion opens up additional territory for truth to speak...a very good thing.

Should we posit a "God" into that void of ignorance?

No. Rather, we should open our minds to all alternate hypotheses again, and break the hold Evolutionist dogma has held on the public imagination for almost a century now.

[MikeNovack]

What if we will never have an explanation for such things as how an eye or an appendage came into existence from not being an eye or an appendage? Where does that leave us?

It manifests the fact that Evolutionism is not nearly the "scientific" think it purports to be. That's for sure. And in the wake of things like recent false prophecies from "climate science" advocates and the Fauci scandal, I think we do well to be alert to the false invocation of "settled science." It is often a ruse to sponsor the demand that we do not investigate a shaky theory too much.

[MikeNovack]

What if we will never have an explanation for such things as how an eye or an appendage came into existence from not being an eye or an appendage? Where does that leave us?

It manifests the fact that Evolutionism is not nearly the "scientific" think it purports to be. That's for sure. And in the wake of things like recent false prophecies from "climate science" advocates and the Fauci scandal, I think we do well to be alert to the false invocation of "settled science." It is often a ruse to sponsor the demand that we do not investigate a shaky theory too much.

Uh no, not at all "shaky". You are confusing two things. We'll use "eye" as an example. You are confusing "how did an eye evolve?" with "at what point in the evolution of the eye do we conclude a feature not yet an eye has evolved to being an eye. Those arguing for the evolution explanation would say you aren't going to be able to draw a fast/hard line between "not yet an eye" and "a functioning eye". But also that you can't use THAT reality (no hard/fast line) to argue against evolution. Especially since evolution implies there would be no hard/fast line.

"Climate prophecies" false? Exactly what makes you say that? The ocean temperature and sea level haven't risen. Glaciers aren't collapsing? This El Nino not stronger than any previously recorded? I'd say the observations are well within the range of the "prophecies" (science uses the term "predictions")

[Gary Childress]

What if we will never have an explanation for such things as how an eye or an appendage came into existence from not being an eye or an appendage? Where does that leave us?

It manifests the fact that Evolutionism is not nearly the "scientific" think it purports to be. That's for sure. And in the wake of things like recent false prophecies from "climate science" advocates and the Fauci scandal, I think we do well to be alert to the false invocation of "settled science." It is often a ruse to sponsor the demand that we do not investigate a shaky theory too much.

I'm sure it's a good idea to distrust science and trust sources such as Breitbart and PJ Media instead.

[Immanuel Can]

Those arguing for the evolution explanation would say you aren't going to be able to draw a fast/hard line between "not yet an eye" and "a functioning eye".

That's another serious problem for them. For any non-fully-functional change is necessarily a survival-advantage, but may well be a serious liability.

This becomes even more clear when you consider something like the flagellar motor. Imagine a kind of paramecium that had "evolved" a tail...but not one with the 40 or so functioning parts required to produce a working 'motor,' but rather with anything less. The tail then lies like a dead anchor at the tail end of the organism, slowing and twisting its movements, not adding anything at all to its ability to navigate. And that would have to go on for thousands or millions of years, until all 40 parts were in place, fully functional and working. So for thousands or millions of years, a crippled organism managed to defy the survival-of-the-fittest, and end up with a functional flagellum?

The story gets wilder by the second.

"Climate prophecies" false?

Multitudes and multitudes of them. From Al Gore to Greta Thunberg, verifiable lies and climate panic has been circulated in our mass media. You can't be unaware of it. I don't believe you could be. These weren't "predictions," and they weren't "scientific." They were wild speculations, now demonstrably false, but foisted upon the public under the banner of "settled science." But anybody with a memory is going to have questions, obviously.

And as for Fauci? Where is Mr. "I am science" now? Pleading the 5th, so that his own memoirs do not land him in jail. The memory of all the damage he did is too fresh in every memory to be forgotten.

Beware of those who claim to speak for "the Science." They're often not.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sure it's a good idea to distrust science and trust sources such as Breitbart and PJ Media instead.

May I suggest that instead of gravitating to "authorities" on any side, you check the facts, instead?

[Gary Childress]

I'm sure it's a good idea to distrust science and trust sources such as Breitbart and PJ Media instead.

May I suggest that instead of gravitating to "authorities" on any side, you check the facts, instead?

Funny how your facts always seem to serve the cause of conservative xenophobes. Our resident religious fanatic asking others to "check the facts". That's rich.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sure it's a good idea to distrust science and trust sources such as Breitbart and PJ Media instead.

May I suggest that instead of gravitating to "authorities" on any side, you check the facts, instead?

Funny how your facts always seem to serve the cause of conservative xenophobes. Our resident religious fanatic asking others to "check the facts". That's rich.

Now, that's interesting. I've noticed that Lefties do this. They call people names, and then they stop listening to whatever they say...even if what they say is unimpeachably right.

Do you have some objection to checking the facts, Gary? If not, then were I old Adolph himself, your "critique" would still be nonsense.

[Lacewing]

Why would a god of the great vastness that exists be so small that ONLY SOME human beings would be accurate interpreters or reflections of? That only fits a human-contrived idea to superficially boost the identity and authority cravings of some human beings.

[Gary Childress]

May I suggest that instead of gravitating to "authorities" on any side, you check the facts, instead?

Funny how your facts always seem to serve the cause of conservative xenophobes. Our resident religious fanatic asking others to "check the facts". That's rich.

Now, that's interesting. I've noticed that Lefties do this. They call people names, and then they stop listening to whatever they say...even if what they say is unimpeachably right.

Do you have some objection to checking the facts, Gary? If not, then were I old Adolph himself, your "critique" would still be nonsense.

There are no "facts" that tell us religion is more up to date and informed than science. What's the point in arguing with you? You make it all up as you go along and don't rely on any facts anyway. Stick it up your ass, asshole. Go hang out with some xenophobes so you can be around people you like.

[Immanuel Can]

Funny how your facts always seem to serve the cause of conservative xenophobes. Our resident religious fanatic asking others to "check the facts". That's rich.

Now, that's interesting. I've noticed that Lefties do this. They call people names, and then they stop listening to whatever they say...even if what they say is unimpeachably right.

Do you have some objection to checking the facts, Gary? If not, then were I old Adolph himself, your "critique" would still be nonsense.

There are no "facts" that tell us religion

Not the subject. Look back, Gary...we were talking about accepting authorities.

Wow, you have a short memory.

[MikeNovack]

This becomes even more clear when you consider something like the flagellar motor. Imagine a kind of paramecium that had "evolved" a tail...but not one with the 40 or so functioning parts required to produce a working 'motor,' but rather with anything less. The tail then lies like a dead anchor at the tail end of the organism, slowing and twisting its movements, not adding anything at all to its ability to navigate. And that would have to go on for thousands or millions of years, until all 40 parts were in place, fully functional and working. So for thousands or millions of years, a crippled organism managed to defy the survival-of-the-fittest, and end up with a functional flagellum?

The story gets wilder by the second.

You REALLY don't understand the concept. You are confusing.........

a) The partially/incompletely evolved flagellum would NOT be useful as a flagellum. You are correct about that, But you are forgetting to ask

b) What was that earlier structure that eventually evolved into a flagellum good for? How did it help the organism survive, be "fitter"? This would have to be true each step of the way. Evolution has no "goal". It wasn't trying to evolve the flagellum as an organ of locomotion. Just ended up that way. At no point in the process was the organism crippled by not having a functional flagellum (yet).

Get it? At no point did the organism that evolved into paramecium have a useless dead weight "tail".

[promethean75]

You would have saved Behe the time to write a whole book if he saw your post before he wrote it.

[Immanuel Can]

This becomes even more clear when you consider something like the flagellar motor. Imagine a kind of paramecium that had "evolved" a tail...but not one with the 40 or so functioning parts required to produce a working 'motor,' but rather with anything less. The tail then lies like a dead anchor at the tail end of the organism, slowing and twisting its movements, not adding anything at all to its ability to navigate. And that would have to go on for thousands or millions of years, until all 40 parts were in place, fully functional and working. So for thousands or millions of years, a crippled organism managed to defy the survival-of-the-fittest, and end up with a functional flagellum?

The story gets wilder by the second.

You REALLY don't understand the concept. You are confusing.........

a) The partially/incompletely evolved flagellum would NOT be useful as a flagellum. You are correct about that, But you are forgetting to ask

b) What was that earlier structure that eventually evolved into a flagellum good for?

That's the sort of detail the Evolutionist needs to provide. He can't.

How did it help the organism survive, be "fitter"?

Great question. Ask him.

This would have to be true each step of the way.

Absolutely. Even Darwin said that if a mutation did not produce a survival advantage, the process of Evolution would be entirely blind to it, and could not select for it. Again, that's a question you need to put to an Evolutionist.

At no point in the process was the organism crippled by not having a functional flagellum (yet).

Why are we assuming that? Evolution is supposed to be an explanation of how organisms came to be what they are. If one came to be what it is by no process at all the Evolutionist can explain, why are we granting him a pass on that?

He owes us an explanation for that counter-case that would defeat his theory. It's up to HIM to explain how he believes an organism with a non-functioning appendage could be more survival-apt than a normal one. It's certainly not the job of those of us who deny Evolutionism.

[Will Bouwman]

I've seen them try with things like the human eye or the flagellar motor. I don't think a fair observer will find their attempts to explain those things any more satisfying.

I do.

Well, with more thought, I think you'll find the holes.

As it happens, the more thought I apply, the more holes I fill. It may be that your god did create all the species and all their parasitical behaviour, but it takes a singular lack to be incapable of imagining how life might have developed incrementally, with or without some god's intervention.

Now, to your other question, what's the problem you foresee?

You trying to make sense of it.

Ah. I see.

Was it then intended to be merely vaguely insulting, and had no useful connection to the present topic? I didn't want to assume that, but if you confirm it...

No Mr Can; it is as you said a good question; but instead of openly expressing your own thesis, you assault others. If you were confident about your explanation for why your god imposes such suffering on snails, you wouldn't hesitate to express it. I genuinely believe you are struggling.