Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
De novo genes and the "no new information" argument
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 76170215" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>You can propose what you like, but the evidence indicates that the Earth formed from existing matter under the influence of gravity and electrostatic forces.</p><p></p><p>All rational attempts to explain how things behave in the universe depend on after-the-fact evidence, i.e. observation. An important feature of scientific theories is that they are testable, i.e. they make predictions that can be tested. The science behind the formation of the Earth has been tested in numerous ways and at various scales and broadly corresponds with what we observe. </p><p></p><p>These scientific models are useful because they have explanatory and predictive power; i.e. they give us understanding and insight into the structure and behaviour of the planet, its history, and how we can expect it to behave, they have specificity and scope, as they also help unify the information we've gleaned about the planet in other ways, and so give us a more integrated understanding, they broadly answer more questions than they raise, and they are consistent with our existing body of knowledge. These are some of the characteristics of a good explanation.</p><p> </p><p>OTOH, speculative hypotheses based on fanciful imaginings are not testable, have no explanatory or predictive power, have no specificity or scope, give us no new understandings or insights into the planet, don't help unify our knowledge with other related fields, raise more questions than they answer. They act more like labels covering a lack of knowledge and understanding. An 'explanation' that can explain anything at all is no explanation at all, and the inexplicable is not an explanation.</p><p></p><p>As usual at this point, I'll ask whether you can give any argument or provide any evidence that would make the 'God' hypothesis a better explanation, by reasonable criteria, than the 'Magic' hypothesis?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 76170215, member: 241055"] You can propose what you like, but the evidence indicates that the Earth formed from existing matter under the influence of gravity and electrostatic forces. All rational attempts to explain how things behave in the universe depend on after-the-fact evidence, i.e. observation. An important feature of scientific theories is that they are testable, i.e. they make predictions that can be tested. The science behind the formation of the Earth has been tested in numerous ways and at various scales and broadly corresponds with what we observe. These scientific models are useful because they have explanatory and predictive power; i.e. they give us understanding and insight into the structure and behaviour of the planet, its history, and how we can expect it to behave, they have specificity and scope, as they also help unify the information we've gleaned about the planet in other ways, and so give us a more integrated understanding, they broadly answer more questions than they raise, and they are consistent with our existing body of knowledge. These are some of the characteristics of a good explanation. OTOH, speculative hypotheses based on fanciful imaginings are not testable, have no explanatory or predictive power, have no specificity or scope, give us no new understandings or insights into the planet, don't help unify our knowledge with other related fields, raise more questions than they answer. They act more like labels covering a lack of knowledge and understanding. An 'explanation' that can explain anything at all is no explanation at all, and the inexplicable is not an explanation. As usual at this point, I'll ask whether you can give any argument or provide any evidence that would make the 'God' hypothesis a better explanation, by reasonable criteria, than the 'Magic' hypothesis? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
De novo genes and the "no new information" argument
Top
Bottom