” That’s a ridiculous argument… and the same thing is …

Comment on God and Granite Cubes by George.

” That’s a ridiculous argument… and the same thing is true for biological complexity at higher levels.”

But it is not ridiculous to think once all biological life was perfect without decay and all biodiversity ( except fish and fowl) that we see today came from animals crammed into an Ark that survived a world wide flood? Ahhh yes… but this latter proposition is supported by the weight of the evidence buttressed by biblical credibility.

I think what Pauluc and others are trying to point out to you ( for example look af the opinions of Noble Prize winning, Christian Professor Townes) is that there can be a disparity between science and literal biblical faith and that is OK. But when all science has to be shoe horned into a unique YLC model, this is going to be viewed as a tad narrow on the objective rational scale:)

I confess, I don’t know if there is a God, don’t know the nature of HIm/Her/It, rely on science over time to give me a better understanding of reality and to understand what God is likely not, see the hand of Man in creating religion and ideas of God(s) over time, have never spoken to a God or been spoken to one- that I know of – have never witnessed ghosts, spirits, miracles, etc. Doesn’t mean I am not looking for answers or oblivious to the faith of others. Faith and hope can be very comforting things and I do not begrudge anyone in that regard.

As to non human design, the jury remains out. As I cited to you long ago there is evidence of other universes: and they are a possibility. If they are numerous – approaching infinity- then there is certainly a possibility that ours is by chance one that supports observable human life ( anthropic principle). This is no more outlandish than your admonition – and speculation – to me that I don’t understand the power of a god that would contemplate birth control or humans travelling to other planets as part of a ‘perfect’ plan. If you can speculate on God’s unstated motives it’s OK to speculate on a metaverse where cosmology is now starting to explore 🙂

Lots of fun and food for thought in any case, keep up the good work and dialogue.

By the way, my family and good friends think a bit nutty in any case, especially for a secular guy that spends so much time blogging on Educate Truth….. ha ha hee hee 🙂

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
@ Sean

“There is very very good evidence for extremely high level intelligent design all over the place within the universe and within our planet. And, the ID-only hypothesis can actually be studied and tested in a potentially falsifiable manner. This is not true for the concept of “mutliple universes”, for which there is no evidence whatsoever and no possibility of testing or falsification…”

So you are saying at this point in time that Science can prove God in a falsifiable manner but any evidence of the multi verse ( for example the findings of Laura Mersini-Houghton) are unscientific?

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? 🙂

Recent Comments by George

The Creator of Time
Hello Sean

In fairness to you and your readers I feel like we are being redundant on many points and issues. I need to be respectful that this is an Adventist forum that believes and supports YEC not a platform for my agnosticism.

I do appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to lively debate issues.


The Creator of Time
To Sean

“ A hypothesis about the supernatural world cannot be tested, so it is not scientific. The concept of God, Allah, or other supernatural designer(s), capable of designing the whole Universe, can neither be proved nor disproved. Hence, any claims that any supernatural being or force cause some event is not able to be scientifically validated (however, whether that event really occurred can be scientifically investigated).”

And back to you

The Creator of Time
To Sean

“Remember also that the assumption that future discoveries will one day be able to explain everything via mindless naturalistic mechanisms is not science, but a philosophy of naturalism that is very similar to a blind faith religion.”

How does this compare to the assumption that the Bible will be able to predict the end of the world? Scientific in your estimation or perhaps I really don’t understand how science versus religion works

The Creator of Time
Hello Sean

“I began my investigation with genetic evolution since that is my own personal field of expertise. ”

So have you published papers in scientific peer reviewed journals in this regard? Have you done experiments in this regard? Have you published statistical analysis to demonstrate your theory that macro evolution is mathematically possible?

You are always stating that others have to proof you wrong? Really? If you we’re trying to prove Newton or Einstein wrong would you not have to do so before your scientific peers?

Come on now, as you like to say, do you really scientically think all the biodiversity we witness today cane off a floating Ark some 4000 years ago! Is that really a scientific proposition that is provable or just some just so story?

You see I get the design argument but miracles, prophets, Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, goblins, arks and the like are not proper subjects for science in my opinion. This is why you are seeing religions, including the progressive side of Adventistism moving more towards acceptance of science as reality, because they understand the modern educated mind will reject them if the stories are too fanciful or don’t make sense.

You see I don’t mind you calling ideas of the meta verse just so stories or not currently scientific as being non falsifiable. You have a point there. I don’t mind you advancing design arguments, especially as it relates to the fine tuned mechanisms of physics and organic life. You have good points there. But please, try to objectively use use that same scientific circumspection to the fantastic claims of the Bible and EGW prophecies or even the age of life on earth. Then perhaps I’ll see a bit of rational sense to your overall position.


The Creator of Time
Hi Sean

Your real problem of credibility is your double standard of proof. Put your biblical stories of reality to the same degree of circumspection as you put evolution. To really conclude that all the bio diversity that we see in the world today- apart from that that survived in the water- came off an Ark is probably the most unscientific fantastic claim that even all children see as allegory. There is a reason this is not taught as the source of biodiversity in schools Sean. Yet you as a scientist believe it and think it has an evidentiary basis.

Your arguments on design make much more sense because it is certainly arguable that there is a design to the universe based on the anthropiic principle. It is certainly arguable that a designer like God could have designed a universe like ours but also a designerlike God could have designed a cause and effect evolving universe as well. Like Deism I think ID is worthwhile exploring. But I also think science continues to demonstrate mindless cause and effect mechanisms that don’t require design.

You and Behe are focused on irreducible complexity as an underpinning for design – which for you then becomes the stepping stone to biblical creation. Your methodology is apparent to get ‘educated’ minds to buy into a biblically designer God.

You see I don’t mind admitting that there is still much to do when it comes to understanding how physics and biology work. The best minds in the world continue to work, theorize and experiment in these areas. But you dismiss these efforts with a wave of your hand because they fall outside the biblical narrative so they can’t be true. And it is THAT factor Sean that utterly shatters the rational credibilty of
of creation science as an objective endeavour. The boys at the Discovery Institute understood this and have tried to broaden their approach. Deists understood this as well to get away from cultural myth and move towards a more observational basis for understanding the universe. But sadly Sean l, I think you are so entrenched in your biblical paradigm that you cannot see how your double standard of scientific inquiry harms your credibilty as an objective scientist. If I was to cross examine you in a Court of Law I would have a field day on pointing this discrepancy. And believe me, having cross examined many medical experts in forensic matters I do speak from professional experience.

Yes I know I am stating the obvious as many of your fellow ‘progressive’ Adventist colleagues have stayed before, no doubt to no avail. But, without being smug, just as you have encouraged me to look for God, I encourage you to look very deeply within yourself and look for humbly for rational contradiction. Objective humility is the real start to seeking truth.