Comment on God and Granite Cubes by Sean Pitman.
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:)
Based on what? You personally have no idea aside from the fact that the Darwinian perspective is popular among mainstream scientists (an argument from authority alone). Beyond this, you have no idea how the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS works beyond low levels of functional complexity and you don’t know of any published arguments that reasonably explain how it works. How then are you so sure of your position?
In any case, I have no problem with those who believe in the Darwinian perspective. I have a lot of good friends who are Darwinists and a few who are ardent atheists. They just don’t expect a paycheck from the SDA Church is all…
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.
There is no positive evidence of other universes. A theoretical possibility isn’t the same thing as evidence.
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 🙂
I’m sorry, but the multiverse argument is a far more outlandish argument compared to the ID argument. The “multiverse” argument is fundamentally illogical and anti-science. It can be used to argue for anything regardless of its probability. It therefore undermines the “predictive value” part of scientific methodologies. For example, if Arnold Schwarzenegger had won the California Lottery 10 times in a row would you have suspected some kind of deliberate setup? – or would you just argued that perhaps he was just living in the right universe? Do you understand the problem here?
Sean Pitman Also Commented
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?
I’ve already explained this is some detail. And, I’ve explained why the use of the “multiverse argument” can be used to explain everything and therefore nothing… and how this is anti-science. It’s not real science if it undermines the ability to produce “predictive power” for the hypothesis and/or theory – the very basis of science.
Again, the multiverse concept is impossible to test, even in theory, because other bubble universes would be permanently out of reach and unobservable. “Literally, anything can happen and does happen infinitely many times,” Steinhardt says. “This makes the theory totally unpredictive or, equivalently, unfalsifiable.”
An untestable idea is by definition unscientific, because science relies on verifying predictions through experimentation. Proponents of the multiverse idea, however, say it is so inextricable with some theories, including inflation theories, that evidence for one is evidence for the other. However, this argument is self-defeating. It’s like saying that evidence that predicts a multiverse is evidence that would predict anything and everything… and therefor nothing again. It’s a circular argument…
Also, as far as Laura Mersini-Houghton’s arguments, they are based on the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) “cold spot” and “dark flow” data. However, since the initial WMAP data was obtained, a more thorough analysis of data from the WMAP and from the Planck satellite (which has a resolution 3 times higher than WMAP) failed to find any statistically significant evidence of such a bubble universe collision. In addition, there is no evidence of any gravitational pull of other universes on ours. (Link)
Here’s what the Planck team said about the WMAP data:
“The Planck team’s paper appears to rule out the claims of Kashlinsky and collaborators,” says David Spergel of Princeton University, who was not involved in the work. If there is no dark flow, there is no need for exotic explanations for it, such as other universes, says Planck team member Elena Pierpaoli at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “You don’t have to think of alternatives.”
So, really, there is no solid evidence even for one other universe beyond our own – much less an infinite number of universes (which would make any “evidence” meaningless anyway because such a perspective makes any and all observations and predictions equally likely).
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.
Science itself is based on “gaps” between what various hypotheses can effectively explain and reliably predict. If there were no discoverable gaps like this, there would be no science. That is why pointing out the scientific ability to detect deliberate intelligent design behind various phenomena in nature is not a “double standard” at all – especially given that several modern scientific disciplines are based on the scientific ability to detect deliberate intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. How do you think forensic scientists, anthropologists, and SETI scientists hope to be able to detect true artifacts of intelligent design when they find them?
God and Granite Cubes
Oh please. A bacterium is not deliberately intelligent like humans are. This should be self evident to you. Also, human intelligence may be natural, but it is not the same thing as the mindless forces of nature (like meterological phenomena for instance). The existence of a highly symmetrical granite cube cannot be explained by any other “natural phenomena” besides that which also has access to at least human level intelligence. And, that’s the whole point. Different phenomena that are clearly “artificial” in nature require different levels of intelligence to explain…
God and Granite Cubes
That’s just it. The ID-only or “God-only” hypothesis is not being used to explain anything and everything… as already explained.
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.