I got A.I. to agree with me that atheists are logically wrong to compare God with santa

 Here is what I asked A.I. (Gemini). (my writing in blue, the A.I answer in green)

Hi Icke. I was just wondering, surely it's a fallacy of false equivalence if the comparison of God with Santa Claus or an invisible pink unicorn is question begged? For example, however miracles occur, however God done it, if ultimately life only exists because God created it then surely miracles can't be equivalent to magic?

The Flaw of False Equivalence

The comparison of God with Santa Claus or a unicorn is a classic example of a false equivalence because it ignores a fundamental difference between the categories being compared.

• Santa Claus and unicorns are beings that, by definition, exist within the natural universe. They are said to have physical characteristics (a corporeal body, the ability to fly, etc.), and their existence can, in theory, be tested and falsified through empirical observation. The claim "Santa Claus exists" is a claim about a physical entity that should, in principle, leave behind physical evidence in the natural world

• The objection relies on the rhetorical tactic of making a category error seem like a valid comparison. By placing God in the same category as a unicorn, the arguer attempts to force the believer to use the same type of empirical evidence to "prove" God as they would to prove a physical entity, which is a misdirection from the start

• to my mind this is misleading trickery because it is the use of words to cover over the fact that it is question-begged that God is comparable to something absurd or false and undetectable, rather than something that is potentially true but undetectable. Surely it is a choice to go with something we would usually believe false and undetectable rather than something true but undetectable.

• Your final point is the most powerful one. You have correctly identified the logical difference between something that is potentially true but undetectable and something that is false and undetectable. The comparison conflates these two very different categories

• A false and undetectable claim (like a unicorn) is one that, while undetectable, is inconsistent with the known facts of the universe (e.g., the laws of biology).

• A true but undetectable claim (like God as a non-corporeal first cause) is one that is not in contradiction with the facts of the universe, and indeed, is posited to be the cause of them.

How Evolution Theory Is The Only Thing That Evolves

You won't believe how much evolution theory changes. (evolves) It's the only thing they have ever proven to have evolved!

In this blog I will give some examples of just how much of a story this really is, rather than genuine science and you will see from the actual science facts, that there is no evolution in any of them. 

Darwin at first thought cells were a simple blob of protoplasm. They turned out to be cities of complexity, with a DNA quarternary code, and many chicken-and-egg scenarios in place where the systems basically will only work if many parts are all in place to begin with. He also argued that by natural selection alone all of life evolved. (minimum Koonin cell)

Science accepted at that time all life evolved from natural selection alone. However, every evolutionist scientist today would reject that notion. Proving according to deductive reasoning that scientists even if they are in the majority, can be wrong and accept things as true because they believe them to be true.  Sure, they may have thought, "there's gaps to be filled in here", but the point is, they accepted evolution even if from their perspective at the time, only the one mechanism of natural selection would ever be discovered. 

Darwin suggested a whale perhaps had a bear as an ancestor. 

The scientists then used to believe mesonychid ungulates were the ancestors of whales, but they changed that historical story when they looked at genes, and instead argued it was the artiodactyls. They used to believe it was a protein that sprang up in a warm pond with abiogenesis, now they argue the RNA world. 

They used to argue that the coelecanth was an intermediate for amphibian evolution until they found a live one. They then changed the story to elpistostegids being the ancestors of tetrapods, but now they have found them to be contemporaneous, so I will quote what an evolution scientist said; "We now have to invent a common ancestor to the tetrapods and elpistostegids."" 

In fact Phil Gingerich (whom thought Rhodocetus originally had a tail-fluke in regards to whale-evolution, ended up saying on video iirc, that, "Rhodocetus probably didn't have a tail fluke after all". )

Pakicetus was originally argued to have fin-like exaptations iirc, only now they argue it to be terrestrial. (changed their minds)

As for the evolution of baleen whales, one story is that an ancestor had teeth and baleen. A more recent story is that a "sucking whale" had neither teeth nor baleen and this is how baleen whales evolved instead. 

It should be noted here that some whales and bats have echolocation, and the "earliest" versions they find have full echolocation as fully designed systems, with no trace of any evolution of them.

As for the story of bird evolution, that has also been subject to change or difference of opinion as to which story is true. Cursorial versus arboreal theories abounded with bird evolution.

One group thought (and some probably still do), that avian evolution was from a crocodilomorph. A sort of small "relative" of the crocodile if I remember correctly, (but I am rusty on that). The other group thinks the cursorial theory is true, that birds evolved from therapods.

An amusing thing is that objections by each group seems to mutually rule out the other group's claims.

Kind of like if two people that committed a crime together but are now implicating each other, go to war with each other and their accusations towards each other both turn out to be true because both are guilty.

In this case bird evolution is ruled out by the fact both theory's make valid objections toward the other. 

They also make no sense because theropod evolution would have birds evolve from lizard-hipped dinosaurs rather than bird-hipped dinosaurs. 

We also had ORP. (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). I remember in the early 2000s when atheists online would put this at the top of their list of reasons for why they believed evolution is true. Now science has rejected ORP. 

At the time they had Haeckel's fraudulent drawings still in textbooks. It would not surprise me if some of those misleading pictures still existed in some but I don't know. 

They used to insist the branchial folds in the embryo were "gill slits", because the embryo would have allegedly traced an evolutionary history.

Something that still sounds so absurd you would think it came from a sci-fi film but this is what those on the side of "science and rationalism" fully believed was scientifically true.

They will literally believe any story is evolution, but one thing you will note from this blog is that those stories are destined to always change because macro-evolution never existed.

This is the tip of the iceburg, but I have covered the parts of it that I can remember. There's also geology to consider, which has also changed because they predicted uniformitarianism but neo-catastrophism is arguably now the order of the day. That's because the slow process scenario doesn't fit any more. You have all kinds of evidence that doesn't fit long ages such as paraconformities (flat gaps), planated surfaces, inselburgs (erosional remnants), standing arches, BEDS. (briefly exposed diluvial surfaces). You also have MT ST Helens blowing it's stack and creating a canyon in two days with some of the above features.

Things thought to take a long time no longer do. Desert varnish, oil, sedimentation. Flume experiments show you can get facies form in hydraulic conditions.

I regard the retort, "but science changes with new data", as an absurdly WEAK retort. That is not the real reason why evolution-theory evolved and can't come up with a story they can get straight. The real reason isn't needing new data, the real reason is that the facts don't yield a true evolutionary history. They are looking for a history that is not there which is why there can never be a consistent picture of evolution.

I got A.I. to agree with me that historical theories in science are logically weak.

 With operational science, methodological naturalism is PROVABLE. That is to say, you can PROVE you only need natural causes for the operation of things in the universe. The operation of electricity, your lungs, how lift or downforce work, etc....(pretty much any cycle, the hydrological cycle, reproduction, all can be shown to be natural)

BUT, with historical theories, methodological naturalism is a 100% assumption.

This is important logically because if you build a whole natural historical theory on an assumption which is not true then the theory could be false. (possibilis falsus syllogismus.)

This MUST make historical theories logically weaker, because you do not have this problem with operational science.

In real life the operation of a car engine (operational science) PROVES you only need those parts and systems on their own to operate the car engine so that it idles, without agency. But when it comes to the origins of the car (historical science), this no longer works because the methodologically natural explanation for how a car engine came to exist would be wrong if it assumed no agency.

(proving my case.)

But don't believe me, believe google's A.I instead;

This is what it said;

"The statement about methodological naturalism being proven deductively with operational science while being an assumption in the science of origins is accurate. Methodological naturalism, which is the principle of relying on natural explanations in scientific inquiry, is often considered a foundation for operational science, where experiments can be directly performed to test hypotheses and derive conclusions. However, when dealing with the origins of things in the past, like evolution or the formation of the solar system, it's more of an assumption or a working hypothesis because we cannot directly observe those events"

Can you see the point? They reject intelligent design even if we don't mention God, because of their fear it will evidence God. (irrational, and UNscientific) Yet they will take any natural cause no matter how seemingly absurd, such as abiogenesis.

The scientists used to believe mesonychid ungulates were the ancestors of whales, but they changed that historical story when they looked at genes, and instead argued it was the artiodactyls. They used to believe it was a protein that sprang up in a warm pond with abiogenesis, now they argue the RNA world. They used to argue that the coelecanth was an intermediate for amphibian evolution until they found a live one. They then changed the story to elpistostegids being the ancestors of tetrapods, but now they have found them to be contemporaneous, so I will quote what evolution scientist said; "We now have to invent a common ancestor to the tetrapods and elpistostegids."" In fact Phil Gingerich (whom thought Rhodocetus originally had a tail-fluke in regards to whale-evolution, ended up saying on video iirc, that, "Rhodocetus probably didn't have a tail fluke after all". )

What's clear is that none of this is real science. It is storytelling. That's why the story changes constantly, whereas operational science never does. (not in the meat of the matter)

CONCLUSION; Isn't it simply obvious from this A.I's confession, that because historical "science" deals with the origins of a thing, it doesn't work the same as dealing with the operation of a thing. 

It is actually a non-sequitur that if the operation of the universe is naturally explained that therefore the origins of the things within it, are also naturally explained. 

(Please also read this blog for further deductions that show evolution to actually be false because "THE" evidence for it has actually never been found; https://creationworldviews.blogspot.com/2024/04/two-steps-to-turn-you-off-evolution.html

If Darwin Came Back From The Grave

If Darwin came back imagine the scenario. He would say; "Oh my goodness, the year is 2025? I will look for the answers to the questions I had in the Victorian age. My first question; I always wondered how a bat traversed a radically different phenotype and had useful stages between being a quadruped and a bat. I also also wondered about the insect wing, and other odd anatomies such as how a turtle evolved it's interior scapular girdle or how the bombarbier beatle evolved it's explosive matrix. How did the electric eel have inbetween stages or the anemone sting-eating slug?(without the stinging darts killing the slug and the electric killing the eel) Can you show me how evolution actually traversed what would seemingly be useless inbetween stages and show the use of those stages by showing me the evidence you have uncovered that evolution achieved these things?"

Scientific community in the large arena where Darwin asked this question to the audience;

CRICKETS. 

.....Then......after a few minutes silence;

"you stupid creationist, you don't understand science!"

And another;

"you science-denying idiot, speciation is a fact!"

And another;

"Don't you know all about adapting bacteria yet, you science-denying creatard!"

Cornering Evolutionists Using Undeniable Disjunctions

 You can corner evolutionists using a disjunction. (binary = two options only) Disclaimer; I am not saying that in all circumstances evidence can be forced into two categories, what I specifically am saying is that when it can be, then it creates an inescapable situation for evolutionists that proves they commit intellectual suicide on behalf of their BELIEFS. (unscientific)

Some questions we ask in life lead inexorably to a disjunction where there are only two options, two types of evidence, and that is all we can find. It doesn't always happen because sometimes there are more options, but for many questions there are two outcomes we reasonably can only expect;

Like if I argue you are not wearing socks, and we know we will be able to get you to remove your shoes.

Outcome 1. Wearing socks.

Outcome 2. Not wearing socks.

If in this scenario we are ABLE to reveal your feet, then those are the only two outcomes in regards to the situation/question. The only two pieces of evidence you might say, or proofs.

So if you say, "the absence of socks on your feet is actually NOT evidence you are not wearing socks", then IPSO FACTO you are then saying that wearing socks would be the evidence you are NOT wearing them. (Because there are only two possibilities in this situation and one of those options has to favour the negative because of the law of the excluded middle. Either the statement someone is wearing socks is true, or false, it can't be a matter of, "it could be true or true")

So if you are in denial you would say, "neither wearing socks nor not wearing them count as evidence socks are absent". 

But then what is the evidence for not wearing socks then? To which the person in denial could only respond; "nothing."

This is what Richard Dawkins done without realising it on a Christian TV show once. A person gave a testimony of how they experienced a miraculous event, but Dawkins asked after he gave the testimony; "but why would you believe that was God?"

So Dawkins was implicitly arguing that if God done a miracle it was not God and if God didn't do a miracle it was not God. 

In which case what would be evidence of God? 

We can now apply this situation to some more examples that lead to two options only. (true disjunctions)

If we want to know the cause of polymerisation, whether polymers were created/designed or whether they somehow came about naturally, then if they were designed we would expect that if any polymerisation occurred outside of life the process would come from;

Outcome 1. Intelligent designers.

Outcome 2. Natural causes.

If outcome one is NOT evidence they are caused by designers (a contradiction), then the only remaining option would be to say that the evidence of design would be a natural cause that did not require a designer (a contradiction again)

The only known cause of polymerisation outside of life, is when intelligent designers create them such as with nylon and other polymers, meaning this MUST be evidence life's polymers were designed/created when it comes to this situation, because otherwise you are left with being a person in denial.

Not only is the only known cause of polymerisation outside of life, designers, but if you remove the design then that is the very thing that destroys polymers because they depend on being correctly built. The monomers have to be the correct ones, of the correct chirality, and so forth.

Another example is looking for animal kinds in the fossil record.

If God created bats, pterosaurs and Ichthyosaurs from the start, to always be bats, pterosaurs, Ichthyosaurs, always the same pinnipeds such as dugongs, seals, etc.......then if we look in the fossils as creationists the only thing we can expect to find is;

Option 1. Bats, pterosaurs, etc...for however long they persisted in the rocks should be found to be those same kinds of creatures without any record of evolution.

Option 2. Or we find the evolution of those things, such as how a bat developed wings or an Ichthyosaur developed fins, etc.....

We find option 1. If that is not evidence of God creating them then what is since the only other thing we can find is their evolution?

CONCLUSION; If evidence can be forced into two categories and evolutionists/atheists will not allow one of the categories to qualify as the expected evidence of God's creation/design, even though it clearly would be the expected evidence for creation rather than evolution, then evolutionists are REVEALING they are not scientific or objective in the least because they won't even allow evidence of creation. It's a case of, "heads evolution wins, tails creation loses." But I for one am not stupid enough to believe their biased reasoning.