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....

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 you are guaranteed 100% that your conclusion will be wrong if the assumption is 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, instead believe google's A.I. (which is actually heavily rigged to give answers that support evolutionists so it is hard to get it to agree but the advantage of making sure you are 100% correct is that it has no bias like with a human being, so it can be forced to agree with you.

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"

How can anyone still be confident with historical theories?

And think about it, if mainstream science is genuinely objective and honest when it comes to naturalism then why won't they even allow the possibility of a natural designer of life such as aliens, which would not break methodological naturalism? Think about it properly, if a scientist of the mainstream is approached with intelligent design, he will instantly jump to the conclusion that "religion" should not be allowed in science, even though at that stage, nobody has even mentioned God.

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)

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 it's so crap, and changes constantly, whereas operational science never does. (not in the meat of the matter, but perhaps in the negligible side-salad)

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. (because it is predicated on an assumed premise which makes a syllogism unsound)

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. 

The A.I. was forced to agree because I made a rational case that agrees with logical rules, which means that this must mean that IPSO FACTO, those that DENY there is a difference between historical and operational science must be irrational.

This is objective evidence that evolutionists can be motivated by their belief in naturalism even when logical rules themselves prove such a belief to be weak and unprovable. 

(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

Atheists Repeat That There Is No Evidence For God

 When a lot of atheists online say, "there is no scientific evidence for God", they don't have a correct understanding of science.

They seem to think that because science does not investigate God that therefore it is significant if it finds no evidence of God. But in fact it follows that there is no evidence for God scientifically BECAUSE science does not investigate the supernatural.

In other words, a theist can just as easily make a similar assertion; "there is no scientific evidence God doesn't exist."

Both statements mean nothing. 

And since science does not investigate supernatural claims, you can't say the absence of evidence is meaningful without making an ipso facto, tacit declaration that science HAS investigated God. Or, that you the atheist, have investigated God on science's behalf.

LOL.

Anti-theists really can be rather dense. 

In case you still don't get it, science is not "atheism", therefore when you say there is no science to God you are appealing to yourselves as an authority on science. (argumentum ad verecundiam, because atheists are not an authority on science, as their declaration is proof enough that they don't understand science very well.)

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 bombarier beatle evolved it's explosive matrix. How did the electric eel have inbetween stages or the anemone sting-eating slug? 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!"

Arguments About Life On Other Planets And Abiogenesis Claims Are Parroted And Fallacious

 Naturalists all parrot the same arguments. They're all pretty popular.

One of them goes like this; "given there are millions of habitable planets it's certain there is life".

This is called a reverse conditional implication. What that means is you take a true conditional implication and think the reverse of it is correct.

Here is the correct one;

"if there is life then it follows there is a habitable place for it." (always true, because if there wasn't a habitable place then life would not be there)

But atheists/naturalists instead argue the reverse which is a logical error;

"If there is a habitable place then there is life."

This is wrong because the consequent does not follow the antecedent, and also, they PRESUME that "habitable places" are the cause of life. 

There isn't any science to show that just having a habitable planet will make life then exist on it. This argument SKIPS the fact you have to prove abiogenesis first.

Here is another example of the error, but first we start with the correct conditional;

"If you have sand castles, then there must be sand."

But if we were to argue that all you need to get sand castles is the winds and waves, then I would reverse it thus;

"If you have sand, wind and waves, then you will find sand castles".

This argument is wrong for the same reason as the one about abiogenesis is wrong, it SKIPS over what the true cause of sand-castles actually is. (DESIGN)

Another popular argument about life elsewhere in the universe is circular reasoning that goes like this;

"Well life must have came from non-life because after all we are here aren't we, which proves it happened."

But the correct conclusion is that if life is not eternal then it must have a cause, but it doesn't follow that our being here tells us which specific cause that is.

Such circular reasoning could "work" if you replaced "abiogenesis" with "potatoes", or "sausages" or, "phlogiston", or ANYTHING.

"Well life must have came from potatoes because after all we are here aren't we, which proves it happened by potatoes somehow or we wouldn't be here!"

Another argument is the presumption that abiogenesis is something that is scientific, as though asking science people their opinions about alien life has some sort of special veracity that makes their beliefs more accurate because they are scientists.

This doesn't work because basically it is ad-verecundiam (an appeal to authority). In fact nobody on earth is an expert in how life came to be since technically it is a total mystery, so if a scientist has an unhealthy snack like you do, the snack does not become healthy just because he is a scientist.

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")

There is then potentially a third option you may call "denial" where you say, "neither wearing socks nor not wearing them count as evidence socks are absent". 

We can now apply this situation to 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; It's easy to show evidence for creation and design, all you have to do is corner evolutionists. These are only two examples, but there are MANY, and they all favour design. It's interesting that for these types of scenarios, evolution tends to lose the evidence battle.

Did you know that? Or did you not know because you presumed creationists were just some religious nuts like atheists told you?