125 reasons to believe in God

Otangelo wrote:
Your incredulity does not help me in any sense or way. Just keep it for yourself. I am happy with my faith in Jesus. I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance.  If you decide that you want to be saved, and need some guidance, let me know, and I'll be here to help. Ok?

No incredulity here, this is a VERY simply question Otangelo, and you are not responding to it that sends up red flags of all sorts.
Its not a trick question.
Its a yes/no sort of question.

1: Is there emperical evidence for god?
2: Is there any repetable test for god?

~~~
Is happyness with faith a good reason to keep it, even if it turns out to be false faith?

Just keep it for yourself.

No, you put it online, I'm responding to it.

I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance

This is a double negative.

From chatgbt: "The sentence "I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance" contains a double negative. The word "nobody" is already a negative term, and when combined with "attempting" and "to bring me down to ignorance," it reinforces the negation. The use of a double negative can create ambiguity or convey a different meaning than intended. To remove the double negative, the sentence could be rephrased as "I need somebody to uplift me and help me gain knowledge."


If you decide that you want to be saved

I do not beleve there is anything to be saved from, do you have emperical evidence and/or a repeatable test to show there is something that I need to be saved from?

DeconvertedMan wrote:

Otangelo wrote:
Your incredulity does not help me in any sense or way. Just keep it for yourself. I am happy with my faith in Jesus. I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance.  If you decide that you want to be saved, and need some guidance, let me know, and I'll be here to help. Ok?

No incredulity here, this is a VERY simply question Otangelo, and you are not responding to it that sends up red flags of all sorts.
Its not a trick question.
Its a yes/no sort of question.

1: Is there emperical evidence for god?
2: Is there any repetable test for god?

~~~
Is happyness with faith a good reason to keep it, even if it turns out to be false faith?

Just keep it for yourself.

No, you put it online, I'm responding to it.

I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance

This is a double negative.

From chatgbt: "The sentence "I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance" contains a double negative. The word "nobody" is already a negative term, and when combined with "attempting" and "to bring me down to ignorance," it reinforces the negation. The use of a double negative can create ambiguity or convey a different meaning than intended. To remove the double negative, the sentence could be rephrased as "I need somebody to uplift me and help me gain knowledge."


If you decide that you want to be saved

I do not beleve there is anything to be saved from, do you have emperical evidence and/or a repeatable test to show there is something that I need to be saved from?

I wish you all the best.

I note you still have not answered the question.

Is there emperical evidence and/or a repeatable test for god?

I don't hate atheists.
I hate atheism because, in my opinion, it leads people to hell.

Similarly, I don't hate people with cancer.
I hate cancer because it kills people.

Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the ground, so the existence of an uncreated non-physical creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite universe.

The idea that matter can somehow become conscious through evolutionary processes is absurd.

The passion with which materialists defend their worldview doesn't add weight to its truth. Non-believers may claim that it is justified to remain agnostic or reject the idea of a supernatural reality beyond the physical world. They rely on their finite minds and sensory perceptions.

Since we are limited, the truth of the ultimate reality and the invisible, imperceptible supernatural world must be revealed to us. God did that. He gave us the book of nature, scriptures, and moral values. Therefore, disbelief is not justified. Wisdom is to trust the Lord and His revelation, which makes theistic belief rational.

There was no selection process to separate functional amino acids to form proteins in the prebiotic Earth. Checkmate, atheists.

Atheists believe they are intelligent based on their brains, which were not intelligently designed.

How can the inanimate become animate? How can consciousness emerge from atoms, protons, and electrons? These are impossibilities, plain and simple. The origin of consciousness only makes sense when it is accepted that the foundation and cause of the universe, at its most basic level, is an intelligent, living, eternal, and conscious spirit, not lifeless, mindless matter. Ontology moves from an eternal conscious mind, using mathematics, to create the physical laws governing the universe, physics, chemistry, biology, and as the crown of all creation: us. When Occam's razor is applied, and God is negated, absurdities arise, and the realm of "we do not know" becomes their playground.

The theistic worldview as a whole is solid as a rock and undeniably true. The entire universe is immersed, sustained, and connected by information: God's command. This refers to the use of mathematical principles to define physical laws, the fine-tuning of the universe, the Earth, and molecular action and interaction, sustaining and constraining the forces of subatomic particles, to inform the organization of matter to become alive, to inform us how to become spiritually alive through HIS revelation in the Bible.

Genesis: The creator of all living beings, accounting for how everything was made. From top to bottom.

Philosophical materialism, cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution: humanity, created by God, attempting to have greater knowledge than the creator. Everything evolved. From bottom to top.

NEVER, in over 150 years since Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" was published, has any, among hundreds or thousands, if not millions of scientific articles, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and replicable verifiable empirical evidence, that any of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition of speciation and population differentiation.

At the end of materialism: Nothing started flirting with nothing and ended up causing an accident, which suddenly transformed into a precisely tuned expansion of space and matter, forming gas, which formed stars, which formed planets, which formed planet Earth with water, spinning around the sun, which formed a moon around planet Earth, and Earth randomly formed life. And life produced a brain. And the brain produced consciousness. And consciousness became self-aware and realized that 2 plus 2 is 4, thinking and claiming stupid things.

Asking an atheist to appreciate the evidence of God's existence in creation is like asking a blind person to appreciate DaVinci's Mona Lisa.

1 x 1 = 1 Theist: Genesis 1.1: God x His power = Universe
0 x 0 = 1 Positive Atheist: Krauss: Absolutely Nothing x Big Bang = Universe

The human brain is an incredible organ. The Cortex contains 17 billion computers. It works normally 24 hours a day, non-stop, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, day and night, but very often, in some groups of people, it seems to be turned off, never working!

Atheism is the celebration of ignorance.
Theism is the celebration of knowledge.

The fox is clever and tries to appear stupid. With many people, the opposite occurs.

When unbelievers ridicule the inference of God as magic, they seem to be unaware that replacing an intelligent and creative organizing power with unplanned and undirected random events is, in reality, appealing to "magic" that cannot be demonstrated to be possible. Either our existence is a miracle in any case, and then the common objection of unbelievers calling God's creation "magic" is insincere at best, or alternatively, the origin of reality and being through natural means should be so obvious that I shouldn't question it.

You shall not commit logical fallacies. Like claiming that logic can come from non-logic.

When atheists accuse believers of having an imaginary friend, they forget that they have an imaginary morality, an imaginary meaning of life, and, with extreme certainty, their entire worldview about origins is imaginary.

Atheism: An unknown caused an accident by accident. That accident generated other accidents, which somehow over time gave rise to the most fantastic, complex, and organized self-replicating factory in the universe. Atheism is best described as miraculous accidentalism.

Extreme skepticism and incredulity towards an explanation of origins (theism) should automatically lead to extreme credulity in the opposite explanation (philosophical naturalism). The escape from not knowing about origins is intentional and unjustified ignorance of the overwhelming knowledge that scientific advances and investigation have allowed us to obtain, and on which we can understand the world and reality, how the cosmos and biology work, better than ever before. This allows us to make safe inferences about historical events. Interpreting Sherlock Holmes has never been easier than today. Agnosticism is not justified.

If the metamorphosis of an insect is due to evolution, that is, if the transformation from a larval form to an adult is the result of evolution, then we should observe in nature various insects that are in different stages of evolution along this trajectory, much less advanced and complex, but similar to the intermediate forms of current insects in their intermediate stage of development. And there should be a large number of fossils preserved in various stages of this developmental trajectory.



EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS
Today is yet another day in which YOU, an atheist, ignore the evidence that God does, in fact, exist. You need to understand, however, that your indignant, arrogant opinion and denial is irrelevant to the facts.
You may continue to ignore the evidence if you want ... but you cannot claim it does not exist.

You may not like the God of the Bible … but that, too … is irrelevant.

QUESTION: WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF CODED BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION IN THE CELL?

Atheists will say … "God made life' is a blind assertion without evidence. Nothing of which involves science."
With all respect ... I humbly but strongly disagree.
The truth about the theory of evolution or (the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution) is that no matter how you want to define evolution:
1 Change in allele frequency.
2 Mutations acted upon by natural selection.
3 Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
4 Descent with modification from preexisting species, or common ancestor,
5 Genetic drift …. or
6 Some other method of naturalistic explanations ....
None of these theories account for what we now know is the real driver of both the origin and diversity of life, which is … Integrated, functional, complex information storage and retrieval systems.
The crucial question that confirms the conclusive answer to the debate about biological origins and diversity is this:
“How exactly did the prescriptive or coded information to build cells in DNA, originate?”
If you don’t have biological assembly instructions, then you cannot build biological life.
This is a scientific fact that atheists and evolutionists tend to ignore, deny, or reject out of ignorance.
We know that coded information cannot self-generate. It cannot just pop into existence.
So where did it come from?
The 4-character digital information code in DNA is sequenced to provide the assembly instructions for every part of the cell and in turn, every part of every biological organism. These are precisely sequenced nucleotide bases along the backbone of the DNA molecule and cannot be produced by anything except an intelligent agent. The sequencing cannot be produced by a blind, mindless, random chance process, regardless of the amount of time allowed. If atheists and evolutionary biologists are going to keep making the claim that evolution is a fact … then they are going to have to show “exactly” how evolutionary mechanisms produced coded informational systems. To-date … they have not done so and there is little evidence that indicates they are even close to showing they can do so.
google: “what are the nucleotide bases in dna”,
or
go here: https://knowgenetics.org/nucleotides-and-bases/

Anyone who denies, ignores or rejects this scientific fact is doing so out of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
Atheists/evolutionists, cannot explain HOW the DNA molecule evolved from a blind, mindless, purposeless, random chance natural process, which, has no idea what an assembly instruction code is or should be?
These nucleotide bases function exactly like the letters of a written language or digital symbols in a section of computer code. These comparisons are not just an analogy as many atheists/evolutionists claim. This is a functional, coded information storage and retrieval system and operates exactly like a computer operating system.
The book: “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life”, was written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost specialist in bioinformatics. Yockey rigorously demonstrated that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not a subjective statement, nor is it debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact.
Again … To deny this fact is either willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Coded sequential information that instructs for the construction, operation, maintenance, and modification of a machine are UNIQUE to the PRESENCE of a designing intelligence. The nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule have been specifically sequenced to provide the assembly instructions for all of the other proteins and enzymes in the cell. This is an observable fact and not a subjective statement or baseless opinion.

THEREFORE, DNA CONTAINS A CODED INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED

Just as letters in the English alphabet can be formed to convey a specific message or instruction, depending on their arrangement, the sequences of chemical bases along the spine of the DNA molecule, convey precise instructions for the assembly of proteins. Proteins are then assembled precisely to perform numerous functions or assembly instructions of structures in the cell.
In 2010, the noted micro-biologist, Craig Venter and his team created the first computer designed, synthetically produced genome, which is the set of application programs for an organism. This artificial DNA had over 1,000,000 letters of genetic code that were then read, processed and executed by the computer systems in the target cell’s nucleus. Thanks to Venter and his team, these biological computers are no longer theoretical, but have been experimentally observed, tested and verified.
In an interview with Venter, He stated: “Life is basically the result of an information process, a software process. Our genetic code is our software, and our cells are dynamically, constantly reading that genetic code.”
(Watch this video documentary: “Science Uprising”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhuxg3WRfg

According to evolutionary theory, new proteins, new animal functions, or new animal types of life, arise by random genetic mutations acted on by natural selection. But random changes in a language text or computer code, always degrade the function of the text or computer code.
So how can a degrading process such as mutations, improve an organism’s function or assemble a better or new function? Quite simply … it can’t. The discovery of coded information in DNA in 1957, and the proof by Craig Venter that the coded information system in DNA actually exists, has falsified evolution.
While a coded information system cannot be produced by a blind, mindless, purposeless, random chance process … the existence of that information system … IS … proof that there was an intelligent designer, because Coded Information Systems are only produced by intelligence.
Integrated Functional Complexity …. IS … Intelligent Design.
To deny that the code in DNA exists, and that an intelligence is responsible for it’s existence … is nothing short of intellectual ignorance or worse … intellectual dishonesty.

A COMPLEX, CODED INFORMATION SYSTEM IN DNA … IS THE DEMONSTRATION THAT DNA WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED … NUFF SAID
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4FPPEzM9Oo

Often atheists claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution replaces God.  Richard Dawkins famously noted that:  “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
While Darwin supposedly encountered an alternative explanation for the origin of biodiversity, that does not include an explanation for: 

1. The fact that the universe and biological systems appear designed. If so, why would they not be? 
2. The universe is like a wind-up clock, winding down as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. That means it had a beginning. Evolution does not explain its cause. 
3. Laws and rules of mathematics and physics are imprinted in the universe, which obeys them. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned to permit life. Hundreds, if not thousands of constants must be just right. Evolution does not explain these finely adjusted parameters to permit life.  
4. Cells are in their identity, in a literal sense, a gigantic city of interconnected chemical factories, full of production lines, driven by energy turbines, and directed by software. Evolution does not explain this state of affairs. 
5. Cell factories have a codified description of themselves in digital form stored in genes, and up to over 200 manufacturing, signaling, and regulatory codes, and have the information transmission machinery to process that information through transcription and translation into an identical representation in analog 3D form, the physical 'reality' of that description. The origin of the first living cell is unrelated to evolution, and chemical evolution is a buzzword, that is unrelated to natural selection.  

When removing the smoking screen of evolution & natural selection, the only two alternatives to explain all the physical phenomena are an intelligent creator, or not. And when a creator is removed, all that is left as alternatives, are
unguided, random, stochastic events to explain our existence. Claiming that randomness is an inadequate explanation for our existence, is not an argument from ignorance, but a conclusion based on observation. Claiming that God is the best explanation for our existence is not a God of the Gaps argument, but a positive inference based on the scientific evidence at hand. Intelligence can produce ( and we know this based upon our own intelligence ) something completely new, fine-tune, use math to instantiate specific rules, select, and create codes, languages, blueprints, instructional assembly information, complex machines, energy turbines, assembly lines, and chemical factories. Extrapolating our observation to a similar cause, that created our physical universe, and life is a logical inference to the best explanation.


Often atheists claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution replaces God.  Richard Dawkins famously noted that:  “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
While Darwin supposedly encountered an alternative explanation for the origin of biodiversity, that does not include an explanation for: 

Apparent Design: It's striking how the universe and living organisms display a remarkable level of complexity and intricacy, resembling the work of a designer. When I examine the intricate structures of cells, the interdependent relationships between organisms and their environments, and the elegant laws governing the universe, it's challenging to dismiss the possibility of a deliberate creator. While evolutionary theory offers insights into how species change over time, it doesn't fully address the question of the origin of life or the underlying design that seems to permeate the natural world.

Universe's Origin: The concept of the universe as a winding clock suggests a beginning point, a moment of creation. The Big Bang theory provides an explanation for the origin of the universe, but it doesn't explain the ultimate cause behind this cosmic event. The fact that the universe had a definite starting point raises profound questions about what might have initiated this process. Evolution may account for the diversity of life within the universe, but it doesn't delve into the origins of the universe itself.

Fine-Tuning and Laws of Physics: The finely-tuned constants and laws of physics that enable the existence of life are remarkable. The precision required for a universe that can support life is truly astounding. Evolutionary theory, while illuminating how species change and adapt over time, doesn't explain why the universe seems meticulously fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of life. The existence of these finely tuned parameters and physical laws raises the question of whether they are the result of chance or intention.

Cell Complexity: When I contemplate the inner workings of a cell, I'm struck by its astonishing complexity. Cells are akin to miniature cities, complete with factories, machinery, and information processing systems. The intricate molecular processes and structures within cells appear to point toward a purposeful design. While evolution provides insights into how species diversify, it doesn't account for the origin and complexity of cellular systems.

Information in Life: The presence of complex genetic codes and information within living organisms is a profound mystery. DNA's role as a blueprint for life, along with the intricate processes of gene expression, challenges our understanding of how such sophisticated interdependent information systems could arise solely through unguided processes. Evolutionary mechanisms can account for changes within populations, but the origin of the genetic information, the genetic code and language,  and the coding systems themselves remain an unsolved question. Not because science has not investigated it, but because unguided mechanisms are inadequate explanations. 

Considering all these aspects, it's not a matter of simply arguing from ignorance or inserting a "God of the Gaps." Instead, it's a rational inference based on the observations and evidence at hand. From what I can discern, the presence of intricate designs, fine-tuned parameters, complex information systems, and the orchestrated interplay of diverse components points toward the involvement of an intelligent agent. Just as my own experience tells me that intelligence can produce sophisticated structures, systems, and information, I find it a logical and reasonable inference to conclude that an intelligent creator is the best explanation for the origins and complexities we observe in the universe and life.

Otangelo wrote:I don't hate atheists.
I hate atheism because, in my opinion, it leads people to hell.

And all other religions right? Only your religion leads to salvation, so that's only about 33% of the world, maybe less. I did some calcuations with help of chatgpt awhile ago:

92-97 billion non-Jewish and non-Christian individuals are all in hell (currently)

The calcuation of the human race and subtract non-jew/non-xtan people and you get that huge number of humans. 92 billion. Heck round it down, 90 billion people. Just think about that. 90 billion people in hell. (so far).

Similarly, I don't hate people with cancer.
I hate cancer because it kills people.

But God makes cancer and also death!

Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the ground, so the existence of an uncreated non-physical creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite universe.

To YOU but not to me, or any other skeptic that I know of. What the bleep is a non-physical anything?

The idea that matter can somehow become conscious through evolutionary processes is absurd.

appeal to personal incredulity

The passion with which materialists defend their worldview doesn't add weight to its truth.

Correct, nor does your passion add or take away anything from what arguments you have - I do not care about passion or lack thereof, I only care if the argument is valid and sound. Your arguments have many logical fallacies. All I can do is point them out, try to suggest corrections, and hope you fix them, so far, you have not even tried as far as I can tell.

Non-believers may claim that it is justified to remain agnostic or reject the idea of a supernatural reality beyond the physical world. They rely on their finite minds and sensory perceptions.

What choice do we have but to rely upon the minds and/or sensory perceptions we have?

Well- we might record what we think we observe and have someone check to see if that is what they also observe, and the more people that do that, the more sure we can be that we got it close, if not spot on - that would be the method of science, broadly speaking.

Since we are limited, the truth of the ultimate reality and the invisible, imperceptible supernatural world must be revealed to us.

Why not make us non-limited so that we can understand the truth of ultimate reality? That would negate the burden of revelation.

God did that.

Prove it.

He gave us the book of nature,

What book of nature?

scriptures,

I'll grant that.

and moral values.

Examples?

Therefore, disbelief is not justified.

That assumes that there is something to disbeleve in.
Its also an unwarented conclusion based upon your falty logic.
In YOUR VIEW you think that non-beleve in your version of god is not warrented. Now, I bet you have zero problems with disbelief in Zeus correct?
Or Shiva the destroyer, or any other Gods that are not your version of god.
I could say that disbelief in those gods is unwarented. Heck, I'll go with LOD - disbelief in LOD is unwarneted.

Have I made an argument to support that idea?
Have YOU made an argument to support your idea?

Wisdom is to trust the Lord and His revelation,

Circular reasoning.

which makes theistic belief rational.

To you, perhaps. Not to me.

There was no selection process to separate functional amino acids to form proteins in the prebiotic Earth.

How do you know that?
Do you have proof of that?
Evidence?
Scientific pier reviewed paper that agrees with you?
What ya got to support this bald assertion?

Checkmate, atheists.

I was playing Othello, so you do not win.

Atheists believe

How do you know what we beleve?

they are intelligent based on their brains, which were not intelligently designed.

Okay - and? Whats the argument?

How can the inanimate become animate?

Good question. What would not knowing the answer to such a question mean to you? Would that mean GOD DUN IT. If I or anyone else provide an answer to you, would you accept it, or reject it?

How can consciousness emerge from atoms, protons, and electrons?

Good question. What would not knowing the answer to such a question mean to you? Would that mean GOD DUN IT. If I or anyone else provide an answer to you, would you accept it, or reject it?

These are impossibilities, plain and simple.

How do you know that?

The origin of consciousness only makes sense when it is accepted that the foundation and cause of the universe, at its most basic level, is an intelligent, living, eternal, and conscious spirit, not lifeless, mindless matter.

It only makes sense TO YOU.
However, even if something seems to "make sense" that does not make it true.

Ontology moves from an eternal conscious mind, using mathematics, to create the physical laws governing the universe, physics, chemistry, biology, and as the crown of all creation: us.

I don't know black holes seem mightly impressive to me, I think they are the crown of all creation. Therefor God made blackholes and everything else was just to be sucked into the black holes. I also can assert things without any argument!

When Occam's razor is applied, and God is negated, absurdities arise, and the realm of "we do not know" becomes their playground.

Oh the horror of not knowing things! Oh noooo!!!! Man you really have a problem with that. Do you know what god's power is like? How many angels are there? How many demons are there? Where is hell located? Where is the Garden of Eden on earth? What is the square root of a wood chuck chucking a writing desk that is like a pen when one hand claps in the woods?

Oh no! You don't know! Oh nooooo!
Get over yourself man. We don't know stuff. Big deal.

The theistic worldview as a whole is solid as a rock and undeniably true.

All of them? Really? All theistic world views? Or just YOUR version?

The entire universe is immersed, sustained, and connected by information: God's command.

What of the 613 commands would that be?

This refers to the use of mathematical principles to define physical laws, the fine-tuning of the universe, the Earth, and molecular action and interaction, sustaining and constraining the forces of subatomic particles, to inform the organization of matter to become alive, to inform us how to become spiritually alive through HIS revelation in the Bible.

Bald assertions as far as the eye can see! LOD does a better job then your god.

Genesis: The creator of all living beings, accounting for how everything was made. From top to bottom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZZusx65gxk&ab_channel=DeconvertedMan

Philosophical materialism, cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution: humanity, created by God, attempting to have greater knowledge than the creator. Everything evolved. From bottom to top.
NEVER, in over 150 years since Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" was published, has any, among hundreds or thousands, if not millions of scientific articles, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and replicable verifiable empirical evidence, that any of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition of speciation and population differentiation.

Idea - before you type in nonsense run it though chatgpt and ask it for logical and scientific errors... here is what happened when I ran your paragraph above doing that:

Chatgpt:
~~~
Misunderstanding of Evolutionary Mechanisms: The statement seems to imply that no scientific articles have provided evidence for macroevolutionary transitions. However, numerous studies have presented evidence for various mechanisms contributing to macroevolutionary changes, such as speciation and population differentiation. These mechanisms include natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and more.

Demand for a Single Demonstration: The statement asks for "ONE DEMONSTRATION" of macroevolutionary transitions, which is an oversimplification of scientific research. Science relies on cumulative evidence from multiple studies across various fields to build a comprehensive understanding. Evolutionary biology doesn't hinge on a single "demonstration" but rather on a body of evidence from diverse sources.

Ignoring Accumulated Evidence: The phrase "NEVER... provided ONE DEMONSTRATION" dismisses a vast amount of research that has accumulated since Darwin's time. Over the past 150+ years, numerous studies have provided evidence for speciation and macroevolution through various mechanisms, including the observation of transitional fossils, comparative anatomy, molecular genetics, and experimental studies.

Misrepresentation of Scientific Articles: The statement claims that "hundreds or thousands, if not millions" of scientific articles have not provided evidence for macroevolutionary transitions. This assertion is incorrect. The scientific literature contains numerous articles that discuss evidence and observations related to macroevolutionary processes, including speciation and population differentiation.

Lack of Replicable Verifiable Empirical Evidence: The statement asks for "replicable verifiable empirical evidence" without acknowledging the abundance of such evidence that exists in the scientific literature. Fossil records, DNA sequencing, observations of ecological and genetic changes, experimental studies, and more provide empirical evidence for macroevolutionary processes.

Cherry-Picking: The statement seems to selectively ignore the vast body of research that supports macroevolution while emphasizing a perceived absence of evidence. This is a form of cherry-picking data to support a preconceived viewpoint.

In summary, the statement contains several logical and scientific errors by misrepresenting the accumulated body of evidence in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary theory is supported by a wide range of empirical data from multiple disciplines, and it is important to consider the entirety of scientific research when discussing such topics.
~~

Okay, you said other things that are unsupported nonsense. I don't understand what your issue is with science or why you have not bothered to actualy learn it, you also seem to have yet to learn informal and/or formal logic. Your arguments suck bane and will never ever convince anyone.

Fix your broken stuf man.