@ Sean “The counter, of course, is that there is a …

Comment on God and Granite Cubes by George.

@ Sean

“The counter, of course, is that there is a “natural explanation” for the extreme fine-tuning found within all living things – i.e., natural selection. However, this explanation simply doesn’t work and cannot reasonably work beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. This puts us right back to the argument that Townes and these other scientists use for evident design behind the origin of the universe.”

But it does work and is the most rational and best explanation for the vast diversity of interlrelated life we see on the planet. And the vast acknowledged scientific weight of the evidence ( from experts in their fields , not amateurs or fundamentalists) supports evolution. That does not mean there are not issues to resolve as to how it works over time at a micro level. Of course there are, just like medicine is still working on a cure for many diseases.

It is nonsensical to postulate that on a planet with limited resources, God make perfect, immortal, procreative life and instructed it to go forth and multiply! But that is the model you say is supported by the weight of the evidence. What was perfect God thinking about that design? How can such a concept appeal to your rational, scientific mind?

  (Quote)

George Also Commented

God and Granite Cubes
@ Sean

“The concept of infinite universes beyond our own is simply not testable and could never be testable in a falsifiable manner from our very very limited Earth-bound perspective. ”

How do you know that? How do you know it could ‘never’ be testable, if in fact certain cosmologists are know making observations that they say indicate the effect of other universes on our own? How do you know as time goes on that Man will not in fact unravel the mystery and provide more concrete evidence of a multiverse?

Yet, as Ron points out, God of the Gaps becomes your default mechanism for ‘ostensible’ design – that gets whittled down over time by science demonstrates how cause and effect mechanisms create phenomena.

Again the glaring double standard.


God and Granite Cubes
“In short, just because you can imagine it and just because it might exist, doesn’t mean that there is any evidence for it or that it can be studied scientifically with the potential for falsification.”

You are talikng about God here, right? ๐Ÿ™‚


God and Granite Cubes
@ Sean

“You have absolutely no rational argument to the contrary – and neither does anyone else.”

This speaks volumes my friend! It reminds me of the joke: ” everyone is crazy except you and me… and I’m beginning to wonder about you ๐Ÿ™‚ I am quite prepared for you to discount my scientific rationality. However are you really saying that of all the other scientists that differ from you on evolution, none of them has ‘any’ rational argument!?

As previously expressed, what you resort to when you don’t have scientifc evidence on six day creation or recent life, or proof of miracles, is resort to the ole bromide weight of evidence based on biblical credibility. However when it comes to evolution you use no such test but put it to such laboratory exactitude of changes that occur over millions of years of time. This double standard has not only been pointed out by me but by other Adventist scientists as well. Yet you are the ‘only’ one with a rational argument. Is that scientific?


Recent Comments by George

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman

How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?

Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”

Who said I did?

History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.

However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Bob

Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though ๐Ÿ™‚
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Did you notice that you have unilaterally used the analogy of Alexander the Great of which I have never studied or alluded to?

Are you equating EGW’s vision of extra terrestrial life to a battle on earth? Proverbial apples and oranges, but your silence and evasion of the science behind EGW’s vision is deafening.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Bob and Sean

Is EGW’s vision scientific? Is it corroborated or falsifiable?

Ask yourselves honestly why you believe in it. If it is because of your faith that is fine, but if it has some scientific, empirical basis, as Dr. Pitman likes to tote, you need to establish that basis. Otherwise it is a ‘just so’ theological story.

Also, I think a couple of my previous comments on this topic never made it out of the cyber editing room. I didn’t think they were offensive so I’m not sure why they were not posted. ๐Ÿ™‚