Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

[The Barbarian]

Why the passive voice?

You'd have to take that up with the Author.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Seems you have not only missed the complete material cause and entirely the efficient cause.

Perhaps you mean "final cause." The final cause is God's intention for life to be.

The material cause are the substances and natural laws that God created to do His will.

The efficient cause is the production of heavy elements, energy inputs from the sun, and so on that effected the processes that produced living things.

"... biological molecules from simple chemicals in ways that could have occurred naturally" is not evidence

That's exactly what evidence is. Such abiotic chemicals are further evidence that God was right when He told us that the Earth produced living things.

Or do you believe that a soul, the animating principle, exists in and evolved from the dust?

God merely created the world with the ability to produce living things. That does not mean that dust has a soul. When God says that earth produced living things, do you think that means that there is some kind of magic "animating principle" in earth? Seriously?

 

[The Barbarian]

Entropic principle at work.

I don't think you know what entropy is. What do you think it is?

Did you know that the brown bear living in the northern climates suffered the same kind of devolution?

No, that's wrong. Several added mutations produce a white wooly bear with a black stripe. One additional mutation can produce a completely white mutant. This additional information is required for such evolution.

It lost its function to pigment its fur.

Well not most of them. It evolved a new pattern, mostly white with a black stripe.

Their fur is not white but neutral.

Well, not quite...

 

[o_mlly]

You'd have to take that up with the Author.

You are the author of your own post, not Him.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Good try. Do you know what a heretic is? Perhaps you should have read the full passage: Genesis 1:20-25.

i Then God said: Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky.​

21God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of crawling living creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw that it was good,​

22and God blessed them, saying: Be fertile, multiply, and fill the water of the seas; and let the birds multiply on the earth.j​

23Evening came, and morning followed—the fifth day.​

24k Then God said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: tame animals, crawling things, and every kind of wild animal. And so it happened:​

25God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good.​

Perhaps you mean "final cause." The final cause is God's intention for life to be.

Nope. You do not understand causation. Want me to help you out?

That's exactly what evidence is. Such abiotic chemicals are further evidence that God was right when He told us that the Earth produced living things.

Apparently. you also do not know what "evidence" means. Want me to help you out?

God merely created the world with the ability to produce living things. That does not mean that dust has a soul. When God says that earth produced living things, do you think that means that there is some kind of magic "animating principle" in earth? Seriously?

And still no evidence, just speculation, about the possibility of secondary causes.

No, that's wrong. Several added mutations produce a white wooly bear with a black stripe.

No. The polar bear does not have "white" fur. The bear's fur has no pigmentation.

Well, not quite...

? Well, uh, that image is not a bear.

 

[The Barbarian]

o_mlly said:

Why the passive voice?

You'd have to take that up with the Author.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

You are the author of your own post,

But He is the author of the verse.

Do you know what a heretic is?

I'm not saying you're a heretic. I'm pointing out that you're in error. Big difference.

Perhaps you mean "final cause." The final cause is God's intention for life to be.

Nope.

You have it wrong:

The final cause of a change or movement. This is a change or movement for the sake of a thing to be what it is.

Four causes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As I suspected, you do not understand causation.

That's exactly what evidence is. Such abiotic chemicals are further evidence that God was right when He told us that the Earth produced living things.

Apparently. you also do not know what "evidence" means.

These abiotic chemicals are facts. That's what evidence is:

evidence

1. facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that…

dictionary.cambridge.org

God merely created the world with the ability to produce living things. That does not mean that dust has a soul. When God says that earth produced living things, do you think that means that there is some kind of magic "animating principle" in earth? Seriously?

And still no evidence, just speculation, about the possibility of secondary causes.

God said so. I believe Him. You should believe Him, too.

No, that's wrong. Several added mutations produce a white wooly bear with a black stripe. One additional mutation can produce a completely white mutant. This additional information is required for such evolution.

No.

It's documented. No point in denial. The additional information produced a white caterpillar with a black stripe.

No. The polar bear does not have "white" fur.

Hmm...

Actually, the evolution of polar bears from brown bears included a lot of new mutations. White fur is just one example of the additional information in polar bear genomes. Would you like to learn about others?

 

[ViaCrucis]

"God did it" isn't a scientific statement.

Science is a genre of truth and investigation of truth; but it is not the entirety of truth. Science can only tell us what is observed in nature and that which is natural.

A statement can be unscientific and true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[o_mlly]

You'd have to take that up with the Author.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

But He is the author of the verse.

Repeating your error does not change the fact that it remains an error.

You have it wrong:

The final cause of a change or movement. This is a change or movement for the sake of a thing to be what it is.

Four causes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As I suspected, you do not understand causation.

I knew you did not understand causality. And, apparently, you did not read your own citation. After reading it, you may correct your reply.

God said so. I believe Him. You should believe Him, too.

Exactly where does God say that He will work through secondary causes? After you discover that He did not, you may correct your error in this post as well.

Actually, the evolution of polar bears from brown bears included a lot of new mutations. White fur is just one example of the additional information in polar bear genomes. Would you like to learn about others?

A mutation that adds function may be called "evolution". A mutation that results in a loss of function may be called "devolution". The brown bear to polar bear mutation is a loss of function. I thought you claimed to be a scientist.

What's The Real Color Of A Polar Bear's Fur? (Hint: It’s Not White)

Polar bears aren't actually white. The lighting and their climatic surroundings is what governs the colour of their fur. These bears have shown so many colors depending on what kind of light bounces off of them.

www.scienceabc.com

The course outer hair of a polar bear protects its undercoat and is called guard hair. It is these layers that are responsible for the actual color of the bear’s fur. Every single strand of guard hair is transparent, meaning it has a hollow core with no colored pigments. The undercoat, which is a layer comprising thinner hair, is also colorless, but unlike guard hair, it isn’t hollow.​

​

After reading the article, again you may correct your error in your post. Am I repeating myself?

 

[The Barbarian]

Repeating your error does not change the fact that it remains an error.

I didn't say it. God said it. Take it up with Him.

Perhaps you mean "final cause." The final cause is God's intention for life to be.

knew you did not understand causality.

Again, you'll have to take it up with God. God said so. I believe Him. You should believe Him, too.

Exactly where does God say that He will work through secondary causes?

You're still unwilling to let God be the Creator:

The theologians speaking of those forces truly operating in the world as "secondary causes". God is the first cause, but the forces of nature and free actions of personal beings whom God has created are second causes; and it is extremely important, if we would be true to the bible, that the existence of secondary causes should not be denied.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0851511120/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thethreshold-20&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0851511120&linkId=c9adbf941558210ca934f4901368198c

A mutation that adds function may be called "evolution".

Any new mutation in a population is evolution. Did you forget what biological evolution is, again? Write it down, this time:
"A change in allele frequency in a population over time." Or more simply "descent with modification."

Hence, evolution can simplify organisms as in humans (jaws, etc) or it can make them more complex.

A mutation that results in a loss of function may be called "devolution".

No, that's a creationist superstition. There is no "devolution." Our lower jaws were simplified and made stronger and more efficient. It's still evolution.

The brown bear to polar bear mutation is a loss of function.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, the hairs of the polar bear were evolved to channel sunlight down to the black skin that evolved in those bears to help keep it warmer. The webbed feet that evolved allow it to swim more efficiently. Their physiology has changed to permit longer diving.

Their tails and ears are smaller to reduce heat loss. While these required mutations that added information to the population genome, it is possible for evolution to reduce information, such as the loss of vitamin C genes in humans and some other animals. That is also evolution.

Your source is merely wrong:

Are Black and White Colors? – A Scientific Look at Color Theory​

Are Black and White Colors? - A Scientific Look at Color Theory

A Brief Overview of the Science Behind Visual Color ✔ Explore Different Shades of White and Black ✔ The Role of These Colors in Art ✔

artincontext.org

Color is perception of visible wavelenghts. The world is a lot more interesting than the Reader's Digest version you were told.

 

[Mountainmike]

You said they falsify Darwin. I asked you which of Darwin's points you think they falsify. As you know, most creationist organizations now admit that Darwin's points are factual. So we'd like to see which of those points you think are falsified.

And show us where Darwin discussed "falsification" of scientific theories. You really don't have anything, do you?


He formulated a theory with several points. Which of them do you think has been "falsified?" If you have no idea what his points are, ask and I'll show you. Otherwise, let us know which of them have been falsified.


Technically, a scientific idea based on observation is a hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a settled theory when it's predictions are repeatedly verified by evidence. Which of his predictions (those points I mentioned) have not been subsequently verified by evidence?


Here, you're confusing scientific law with scientific theory. What do you think the difference is between the two?

What do you think a scientific fact is?



So spare the insults. Play the ball not man. Tell us what you think about those things, and we'll go for there.

Now read what Darwin actually wrote.

if you do not know his falsification criterion
( or indeed the nature scope and extent of darwins conjecture and the evidence on which it was based )
you have no basis to challenge what I said.

The difference between me and most of this forum is I insist on scientific rigour because - guess what - I was a scientist who earned his living finding exceptions to scientific rules the military could use, and that comes from knowing the nature scope and extent of the existing scientific model!

 

[The Barbarian]

Now read what Darwin actually wrote.

I've read most of his work, is there a reason you can't tell me where he wrote about falsification?

you have no basis to challenge what I said.

If you can't substantiate what you claimed, we can only consider that when we decide how credible you are.

The difference between me and most of this forum is I insist on scientific rigour

Wouldn't "scientific rigor" require that you provide some substantiation for your claims? Have you never submitted an article to a journal?

because - guess what - I was a scientist

Ah, a "scientist."

But you don't know that claims require evidence? How did that happen?

Just in case anyone is wondering...
van Dongen, P.A.M., Vossen, J.M.H. Can the theory of evolution be falsified?.
Acta Biotheor 33, 35–50 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045845

It can be. In fact, some other theories of evolution, such as Lamarckism, have been falsified. As most scientists of his time, Darwin assumed heredity was in the blood, which has been falsified. That actually cleared up a major problem with Darwin's theory, as genetics has shown how new traits can persist and spread in a population. Darwin really didn't know.

 

[Mountainmike]

I've read most of his work, is there a reason you can't tell me where he wrote about falsification?


If you can't substantiate what you claimed, we can only consider that when we decide how credible you are.

Wouldn't "scientific rigor" require that you provide some substantiation for your claims? Have you never submitted an article to a journal?


Ah, a "scientist."

But you don't know that claims require evidence? How did that happen?

Won’t not can’t. If you know Darwin you will know.
The nature scope and extent. AND his own f lsification criterion
if you don’t know his criterion, it’s time you read darwin.
it doesn’t surprise me you don’t.
Most quote Darwin without knowing the nature scope and extent of his ideas.

His falsifation criterion demonstrates he was unaware of the relationship between phenotype and genotype .
indeed he knew nothing of Mendel, though Mendel knew about him!

his personal falsification criterion doesn’t relate to “survival of fittest.” “ natural selection”
so at best he had an experimental law based on a few birds - mocking birds! of limited scope.
Seemingly mocking him!

Selective breeding had been going on for 10000 years by his day.
so his presumption that the only agent of change was increased natural survival wasn’t true in his day since it is belied by man’s history Even.


He lived in an era when cells were assumed simple blobs of jelly , yet the reality is they are hideously complex and nobody has a clue how the present complexity happened , certainly not him. Any ideas people have are pure conjecture not fact.

Far from fact , little is known for certain.

etc etc

I. prefer scientific rigour to conjecture. But mostly I prefer clarity about the state of knowledge from guess to proven within a specific scope.

I entered the thread because you like Dawkins used the word “fact“ and just as inappropriately.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you can't substantiate what you claimed, we can only consider that when we decide how credible you are.

Won’t not can’t.

Of course. We all understand...

Most quote Darwin without knowing the nature scope and extent of his ideas.

You, apparently.

His falsifation criterion demonstrates he was unaware of the relationship between phenotype and genotype .

No one at the time (other than Mendel, who no one knew about) even suspected a "genotype." Thought you knew.

his personal falsification criterion doesn’t relate to survival of fittest.
so at best he had an experimental law based on a few birds - mocking birds! of limited scope.
Seemingly mocking him!

You've been misled about that. Among Darwin's examples are:
Finches
Plants such as Primula
Mites
Orchids
Bees
Cattle
Fish
...
(very long list)
He was elected to the Royal Society based mainly on his work identifying barnacles as arthropods, not mollusks, as had been previously assumed.

If you had read any of his work, this should have been obvious to you.

Selective breeding had been going on for 10000 years by his day.

Indeed, he was involved in such breeding of animals. His great discovery was that nature also bred living things to particular characters by selection.

He lived in an era when cells were assumed simple blobs of jelly , yet the reality is they are hideously complex and nobody has a clue how the present complexity happened , certainly not him.

As you might know, he simply assumed that God created the first living things. As you now realize, the discovery of genetics cleared up a major problem with his theory; how new traits could survive and spread in a population. Mendel actually sent him a copy of his monograph. Apparently, Darwin (who got a lot of mail) never got around to reading it. Too bad; it would have been very useful for him.

Far from fact , little is known for certain.

It's not part of Darwin's theory, but all the evidence so far indicates that God was right when He told us that life was brought forth from the Earth.

I. prefer scientific rigour to conjecture.

We'll know that when you show us what Darwin said about "falsification."

But mostly I prefer clarify about the state of knowledge from guess to proven within a specific scope.

Like the observed fact of evolution in all sorts of living populations, for example. Including humans. Would you like to learn about how that came about?

I entered the thread because you like Dawkins used the word “fact“ and just as inappropriately.

Since we see it going on in all sorts of populations, "fact" is the only word that really applies.

 

[o_mlly]

I didn't say it. God said it. Take it up with Him.

The post shows a lack of understanding what a heretic is and does.

Again, you'll have to take it up with God. God said so. I believe Him. You should believe Him, too.

You quoted Wikipedia, not God.

And apparently you still did not read or didn't understand what the Wikipedia article on causation explained.

You're still unwilling to let God be the Creator:

? Nope.

The theologians speaking of those forces truly operating in the world as "secondary causes". God is the first cause, but the forces of nature and free actions of personal beings whom God has created are second causes; and it is extremely important, if we would be true to the bible, that the existence of secondary causes should not be denied.

First, theologians are not God. The challenge I put to your post is repeated below:

God said so. I believe Him. You should believe Him, too.

Exactly where does God say that He will work through secondary causes?

<crickets>

Any new mutation in a population is evolution

Nope. I have hazel eyes, my brother brown, and my sisters' blue. Are we all an evolved new species? See: The population genomics of adaptive loss of function - Heredity

There is no "devolution." Our lower jaws were simplified and made stronger and more efficient. It's still evolution.

? Nope. I did not claim that devolution is always deleterious, only that it is a loss of function. The polar bear lost the function of pigmentation in micro evolving ie., adapting, to his environment.

For example, the hairs of the polar bear were evolved to channel sunlight down ...

See above. I brought the polar bear fur color into the exchange to correct your post wrongly claiming that "mutations produce a white wooly bear". They don't. Sometimes people let their egos get in front of their headlights. Feel free to post your gratitude and I'll reply, "You're welcome."

Are Black and White Colors? – A Scientific Look at Color Theory​

Are Black and White Colors? - A Scientific Look at Color Theory

A Brief Overview of the Science Behind Visual Color ✔ Explore Different Shades of White and Black ✔ The Role of These Colors in Art ✔

artincontext.org

I'm quite literate in the theory of color. Kindly, cite in this 1,800+ word article that you mistakenly think corrects anything I've posted in this thread.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge? - Apologetics Press

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

apologeticspress.org

When a naturalist encounters a scientific challenge he cannot explain naturally, he cannot claim a supernatural explanation to his problem without contradicting his belief in naturalism. Having examined sufficient evidence to be a supernaturalist, a biblical creationist does have the option of claiming a supernatural explanation, but when is it appropriate to do so?

Of course, the most obvious time that it is appropriate to say “God did it” as a response to a proposed scientific difficulty with Creation is when the Bible explicitly says He did something. From time to time, however, we might come across a new quibble, about which Scripture is silent, and to which we cannot immediately give a reasonable answer. It would be easy to respond to such quibbles by simply saying “God did it” as our answer to the problem. Such an answer, however, becomes a form of the “God of the Gaps” argument, where God is inserted to solve a problem (or as proof that God must exist in order for the problem to be solved).

No.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you can't substantiate what you claimed, we can only consider that when we decide how credible you are.


Of course. We all understand...


You, apparently.


No one at the time (other than Mendel, who no one knew about) even suspected a "genotype." Thought you knew.


You've been misled about that. Among Darwin's examples are:
Finches
Plants such as Primula
Mites
Orchids
Bees
Cattle
Fish
...
(very long list)
He was elected to the Royal Society based mainly on his work identifying barnacles as arthropods, not mollusks, as had been previously assumed.

If you had read any of his work, this should have been obvious to you.


Indeed, he was involved in such breeding of animals. His great discovery was that nature also bred living things to particular characters by selection.


As you might know, he simply assumed that God created the first living things. As you now realize, the discovery of genetics cleared up a major problem with his theory; how new traits could survive and spread in a population. Mendel actually sent him a copy of his monograph. Apparently, Darwin (who got a lot of mail) never got around to reading it. Too bad; it would have been very useful for him.


It's not part of Darwin's theory, but all the evidence so far indicates that God was right when He told us that life was brought forth from the Earth.


We'll know that when you show us what Darwin said about "falsification."


Like the observed fact of evolution in all sorts of living populations, for example. Including humans. Would you like to learn about how that came about?


Since we see it going on in all sorts of populations, "fact" is the only word that really applies.

I will focus on what Darwin said, claimed and the nature scope and extent of his conjecture.
Also his falsification criterion which if you actually read Darwin in detail you will find. It serves to focus on what his core assertion was.
And it wasnt natural selection..

As for whether Darwin had a hypothesis validated as a theory is moot. His hypothesis is at best woolly and all hypotheses need a limited scope in order to validate them. If the hypothesis is validated it only has the limited scope in which is tested.

For Darwins scope to be "all life" it needs to be tested for "all life" . Since Darwin was unaware of most of life, that is the pathway to the modern cell (which I use only as an example of what he does not cover) - his "theory" if it was a theory does not cover all of life. QED

Darwin ACTUALLY centered on progressive small change, and so his falsification criterion is based on that, which might be true in the populations he studied but that does not make it ubiquitous or ontologically true. We know that small change in genotype can make massive change in phenotype, so the very assumption of progressive small change is certainly not proven, if not actually disproven!.

You see I like logic and rigour. It goes with being a scientist.

Take a simple example. Is our model of gravity a "fact"? Well we know that galaxies do not rotate as they should, so we extend the model with a concept called "dark matter" for which there is neither a model nor evidence. . Does that make dark matter a "fact"? needed to repair another "fact" or does that make gravity not a "fact" The reality is none of it is a "fact" it is a series of models which work in places, not in others. Despite all the evidence that gravity is a "fact" in your parlance.

Quietly where nobody would hear him Hawking gave up on the theory of everything with his "Model dependent reality" which admits there are multiple conflicting models, and you have to know which to use when. So none of the presumed natural laws are a "fact". Just a convenient model.

Yet the scientism of atheism that pretends a universe developed from immutable natural laws exists....

 

[.Mikha'el.]

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge? - Apologetics Press

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

apologeticspress.org

When a naturalist encounters a scientific challenge he cannot explain naturally, he cannot claim a supernatural explanation to his problem without contradicting his belief in naturalism. Having examined sufficient evidence to be a supernaturalist, a biblical creationist does have the option of claiming a supernatural explanation, but when is it appropriate to do so?

Of course, the most obvious time that it is appropriate to say “God did it” as a response to a proposed scientific difficulty with Creation is when the Bible explicitly says He did something. From time to time, however, we might come across a new quibble, about which Scripture is silent, and to which we cannot immediately give a reasonable answer. It would be easy to respond to such quibbles by simply saying “God did it” as our answer to the problem. Such an answer, however, becomes a form of the “God of the Gaps” argument, where God is inserted to solve a problem (or as proof that God must exist in order for the problem to be solved).

I see nothing wrong with doing that, but I would strongly caution against using that in a debate against others. It's not going to convince non-believers for a second that God exists.

 

[The Barbarian]

I will focus on what Darwin said, claimed and the nature scope and extent of his conjecture.

You've repeatedly declined to show us that. For reasons we can only speculate.

As for whether Darwin had a hypothesis validated as a theory is moot.

Not in science. That's a huge thing. When a hypothesis such as Darwin's is repeatedly verified by evidence (as it was and is) it becomes an accepted theory. Tough game to play, but it works better than anything else we can do.

For Darwins scope to be "all life" it needs to be tested for "all life"

So far, it's always worked. It's conceivable that kinetic theory might not work on Neptune, but it seems perverse to claim it doesn't because no one has set up a lab there to date.

Darwin ACTUALLY centered on progressive small change, and so his falsification criterion is based on that, which might be true in the populations he studied but that does not make it ubiquitous or ontologically true.

It merely means that all tests so far have verified it. Like Newton's theory of gravitation. BTW, it's at least conceivable that a Lamarckan biology might exist somewhere. In a sense, that's what epigenetics is about. Doesn't last, of course, but in other biologies, it might.

We know that small change in genotype can make massive change in phenotype, so the very assumption of progressive small change is certainly not proven, if not actually disproven!.

Darwin's good friend and advocate, Thomas Huxley chided him for assuming that all evolution must be gradual. It was one of the first modifications of Darwin's theory. However, you're confusing change in individuals with changes in populations. One of the most remarkable cases of fast evolution happened to humans in Tibet:
Life at high altitudes forced ancient Tibetans to undergo the fastest evolution ever seen in humans, according to a new study.

The most rapid genetic change showed up in the EPAS1 gene, which helps regulate the body's response to a low-oxygen environment. One version, called an allele, of the EPAS1 gene changed in frequency from showing up in 9 percent of the Han Chinese to 87 percent of Tibetans.

Such genetic changes suggest Tibetan ancestors split off from the Han Chinese population about 2,750 years ago, researchers say. But only those most evolutionarily suited for life at high altitudes survived when they moved to the Tibetan Plateau.

"It took only a few hundred generations to change the allele frequency, which can only happen if a lot of people have died," said Rasmus Nielsen, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Berkeley. "In that sense, it must have had a strong effect on fitness."

Tibetans Underwent Fastest Evolution Seen in Humans

In a relative blink of the eye, ancient Tibetans evolved to thrive in low-oxygen conditions of the Plateau.

www.livescience.com

Not what we'd normally call fast. But it is fast for evolutionary change.

Take a simple example. Is our model of gravity a "fact"?

Almost as certain as evolution. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't sure why gravity works.

Well we know that galaxies do not rotate as they should, so we extend the model with a concept called "dark matter" for which there is neither a model nor evidence.

Or something else we're missing. But gravity goes right on working as Newton determined it does. Well, as long as you put in a correction where relativistic effects become significant.

But NASA still uses his theory to navigate around the Solar System, so...

Yet the scientism of atheism that pretends a universe developed from immutable natural laws exists....

I thought it was theists who assumed that God set natural laws as they are. Imagine that.

 

[Niels]

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge? - Apologetics Press

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

apologeticspress.org

When a naturalist encounters a scientific challenge he cannot explain naturally, he cannot claim a supernatural explanation to his problem without contradicting his belief in naturalism. Having examined sufficient evidence to be a supernaturalist, a biblical creationist does have the option of claiming a supernatural explanation, but when is it appropriate to do so?

Of course, the most obvious time that it is appropriate to say “God did it” as a response to a proposed scientific difficulty with Creation is when the Bible explicitly says He did something. From time to time, however, we might come across a new quibble, about which Scripture is silent, and to which we cannot immediately give a reasonable answer. It would be easy to respond to such quibbles by simply saying “God did it” as our answer to the problem. Such an answer, however, becomes a form of the “God of the Gaps” argument, where God is inserted to solve a problem (or as proof that God must exist in order for the problem to be solved).

Not in a "God of the gaps" sense. A gap in our understanding of how creation/nature works is simply a gap in our understanding. God did it regardless of whether we are currently able to explain something scientifically. God created everything. Including everything in the natural world. That which we understand poorly and that which we understand well were all created by God.

For what it's worth, I think that's a stronger argument for God than "God of the gaps". God is defined as the creator of nature. Nature exists. Therefore, God exists.

When a "God of the gaps" argument is used as proof of God, the argument falls apart as soon as we understand how that thing works. The fact that nature exists, or that we have an understanding of how nature works, has never been a valid argument against God's existence as God is the creator of nature.

In terms of a scientific challenge, it isn't necessary to invoke God. You're just trying to understand or demonstrate how things work. All within the bounds of creation/nature. The matter of God as the creator of everything vs. the idea that everything exists because of nothing is a philosophical question beyond the scope of the challenge.

 

[sjastro]

The difference between me and most of this forum is I insist on scientific rigour because - guess what - I was a scientist who earned his living finding exceptions to scientific rules the military could use, and that comes from knowing the nature scope and extent of the existing scientific model!

Guess what- if we go by your nonsense of windmills contributing to the greenhouse effect Question. Is extracting wind power causing some climate change problems?, you are a crackpot or rank amateur, not some visionary whose knowledge goes beyond the realms of mainstream science into unexplored areas for others to use.

In fact what I am going to do is to resurrect your thread in the Physical and Life Sciences forum and introduce a guest to evaluate both our comments in the thread. This guest took my undergraduate third year applied maths exam on fluid mechanics passing with flying colours and will provide a completely unbiased evaluation.
Stay tuned........

 

[Mountainmike]

Guess what- if we go by your nonsense of windmills contributing to the greenhouse effect Question. Is extracting wind power causing some climate change problems?, you are a crackpot or rank amateur, not some visionary whose knowledge goes beyond the realms of mainstream science into unexplored areas for others to use.

In fact what I am going to do is to resurrect your thread in the Physical and Life Sciences forum and introduce a guest to evaluate both our comments in the thread. This guest took my undergraduate third year applied maths exam on fluid mechanics passing with flying colours and will provide a completely unbiased evaluation.
Stay tuned........

I suggest that until you learn conservation of energy you leave science forums alone.
You clearly know nnothing about science.

I earned a good living doing it.
I said nothing about "green house gas" another failure of yours to read. - I stated what a green house does, as noted in every walled garden: they create a microclimate , benefiting from sun whilst sheltered from wind. That too is a green house effect. Try it, if you do not believe me.
Something even gardeners have known for centuries, but you clearly do not! It seems you are guilty of tramlined thinking on meaning of words. What a surprise.

I went way beyond undergraduate on fluid mechanics. Is that how little you know? It figures.
But go back to basics. Study conservation of energy. Then windmills. Good order.

 

[sjastro]

I suggest that until you learn conservation of energy you leave science forums alone.
You clearly know nnothing about science.

I earned a good living doing it.
I said nothing about "green house gas" another failure of yours to read. - I stated what a green house does, as noted in every walled garden: they create a microclimate , benefiting from sun whilst sheltered from wind. That too is a green house effect. Try it, if you do not believe me.
Something even gardeners have known for centuries, but you clearly do not! It seems you are guilty of tramlined thinking on meaning of words. What a surprise.

I went way beyond undergraduate on fluid mechanics. Is that how little you know? It figures.
But go back to basics. Study conservation of energy. Then windmills. Good order.

For those of us that are or have been scientists as opposed to those that boast of being one, your post adds to the suspicions you are a phoney.

In the thread you changed the goalposts from a greenhouse effect, to walled gardens and microclimates eventually to the pure pseudoscience idea the effects of a windmill are permanent leading to the claim I don’t understand conservation of energy.
Evidently you are so confused you can’t even get the ‘tu quoque’ fallacy to apply to the correct example!!

I can so easily call your bluff of boasting of knowing far more about fluid mechanics than I do, by requesting you to use it to demonstrate how windmill effects are permanent.
Those of us who did fluid mechanics as opposed to those who boasted about doing it, would understand the effects can never be permanent and the conservation of energy is preserved.

My critique of your nonsense and your pseudoscience were separately evaluated by an independent source.

Further evaluation of windmills contributing to the Greenhouse effect as being pseudoscience.

Here is the reference thread. https://www.christianforums.com/threads/question-is-extracting-wind-power-causing-some-climate-change-problems.8273855/ Before going any further into the topic let’s introduce another ‘poster’ into the thread GPT-4o. I have privately tested GPT-4o on various...

www.christianforums.com