Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

Right. This makes it a useless hypothesis with zero explanatory or predictive power.

Why?

 

[The Cadet]

But since there are no natural (i.e. unconscious) causes that cover it, the obvious conclusion is a supernatural cause.

The same could have been said about lightning...

...Until we found a natural cause.

Seriously, this is nothing more than a textbook "god of the gaps" argument. It's nonsense.

 

[The Cadet]

Why?

Really? You don't understand why a hypothesis that could never, even in principle, be proven false is useless? This is scientific method 101! What that means is that there is no test you could conceive of that could test the hypothesis, which in turn means that fundamentally, there is no difference between a universe where the hypothesis is true, and a universe where the hypothesis is false. That's what makes it a useless hypothesis.

 

[Hieronymus]

The same could have been said about lightning...

No.
Lightning is not a comparable phenomenon to the universe and life.
Human creations would be a better comparison, because they too involve complex inter-dependant systems and specialised (purposeful) parts.

 

[Hieronymus]

Actually, natural selection is the opposite of chance.

Not really.
Hereditary diseases are proof that there is a chance for the not so fit to survive too.

 

[Armoured]

You need RANDOM MUTATIONS.
Otherwise there would be nothing new to select now would it?
Try to remember this, if you can grasp it.
You can't simply ignore one of the 2 premises of the ToE to eliminate the chance component.

The initial mutations are random, the selection of them is not. I don't see why you think this is problematic.

 

[The Cadet]

No.
Lightning is not a comparable phenomenon to the universe and life.
Human creations would be a better comparison, because they too involve complex inter-dependant systems and specialised (purposeful) parts.

What you're doing is asserting, "this has no naturalistic explanation". How did you establish this? What methods did you use to demonstrate this? Are they any different from the methods that people used to establish that lightning must have been a tool of the gods?

Yes really.
Why does a creator have no explanatory power for complex inter-dependent systems?

I just explained it to you in the part of the post you chopped off! If there's no way it could even in theory be wrong, then there is no difference between a universe in which it is true and a universe in which it is false, ergo the hypothesis is useless and has no explanatory or predictive power.

What's more, appealing to the supernatural to explain a system is not helpful, because right now, we have no way to investigate the supernatural. You're merely explaining a mystery with an even bigger mystery. If I say "A supernatural force of unknown quantity and quality did it", this doesn't explain anything. All it does is leave us with more questions.

 

[Armoured]

Not really.
Hereditary diseases are proof that there is a chance for the not so fit to survive too.

Wow. Get back to us when you understand what a recessive gene is, and how some recessives are beneficial as heterozygous genotype expressions, but harmful as homozygous ones.

 

[Hieronymus]

The initial mutations are random,

every mutation is random in the ToE.

 

[Armoured]

every mutation is random in the ToE.

Yes. But the selection of them is not. I say again, this isn't a problem for the theory.

 

[Hieronymus]

Wow. Get back to us when you understand what a recessive gene is, and how some recessives are beneficial as heterozygous genotype expressions, but harmful as homozygous ones.

That's all very well, but it still doesn't mean that selection has no chance component to it, which was the point he tried to make.

 

[Armoured]

That's all very well, but it still doesn't mean that selection has no chance component to it, which was the point he tried to make.

Um, well then he's wrong.

 

[Hieronymus]

What you're doing is asserting, "this has no naturalistic explanation". How did you establish this?

By studying the subject.
Apparently you don't seem to appreciate the mountain of phenomena and their complexity and premises, which have to be explained satisfactory in order to get a credible explanation.

Both parties assert, it's all we can do.
This is what i have been explaining to you in particular many times already....

 

[Hieronymus]

Gotta go fellas,

Laterr...

 

[The Cadet]

By studying the subject.

Another non-answer.

Apparently you don't seem to appreciate the mountain of phenomena and their complexity and premises, which have to be explained satisfactory in order to get a credible explanation.

The fact that an explanation is complex does not mean that it is supernatural. It simply means it is complex. I'm not sure why you think a supernatural creator makes this simpler, either, as it again moves everything a step further, into a realm we have no way of investigating that may easily be just as complex if not moreso.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a little clean up and a further cleaning may take place. Please stop with the Flaming. You are to be addressing the content of a post NOT the poster personally. If it continues the thread may be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with staff actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Hieronymus]

Another non-answer.

This was only the first sentence of my answer.

The fact that an explanation is complex does not mean that it is supernatural.

Itś not the explanation that could be complex or not, it's THE PHENOMENON WE INVESTIGATE that is staggeringly complex.

 

[The Cadet]

Itś not the explanation that could be complex or not, it's THE PHENOMENON WE INVESTIGATE that is staggeringly complex.

This does nothing to invalidate my criticism, I'm afraid. There are plenty of incredibly complex systems in nature that we investigate which have completely natural causes (the weather, sociology, economics, etc.). It's not enough to say, "Boy, this sure is complex" to say that something needs a supernatural cause.

 

[Hieronymus]

This was explained already on page 2:

....because in this case it's about history: the origin of our existence.
We can not test this, it has already happened quite a while ago.
So we can only obtain and analyse evidence, interpret data and make an assessment.

I suggest we remember this and not bring it up again and again.

 

[Hieronymus]

This does nothing to invalidate my criticism, I'm afraid. There are plenty of incredibly complex systems in nature that we investigate which have completely natural causes (the weather, sociology, economics, etc.).

You assume this is caused naturally, but it is the Big Question at hand here.

It's not enough to say, "Boy, this sure is complex" to say that something needs a supernatural cause.

I think it is.
Why?
Because everything is inter-dependent too and there are no laws of nature to account for it.

But i guess you need analogies as examples...
But you've heard them before, i guess.
So what's the use?
You also can not accept that devine foot in the door for some reason...
Meanwhile the body of evidence for the existence of God does not just involve the origins of the universe and life (plus its premises).
But that's off-topic here.
None the less, the Bible derives its credibility from many pieces of evidence, which makes the lot of it at least worth considering.
Mitochondrial Eve for example, or the table of nations, or the Biblical history after the flood in general.

Anyway, there is no natural mechanism that can account for DNA writing itself.
Nor is there an explanation for the whole system of procreation.
Abiogenesis is not even to be taken seriously.

We live in a fine tuned universe.
The chances of it coming about by chance are practically zero.
Same goes for life and its premises.