Replies

I find it particularly telling that, once again, the focus of the rebuttal to your and hosepipe's assertion, is not directed to the substance of the argument but rather the (presumed) agenda of the poster.

And yet I do not have a clue why Coyoteman is "yelling at me." I mean, he continually enthuses about the joys of "evidence." And heaps scorn on theists for cognizing things that he doesn't think exist simply because they are undetectable by the scientific method (methodological naturalism or, in the extreme cases, metaphysical naturalism).

So to put it crudely: Okay, God is "undetectable" by physical means. But by the very same standard, so is the Common Ancestor so beloved to Darwin's evolution theory.

Robert Herrmann usefully points out that "Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors." Neither God nor the Common Ancestor qualifies in terms of this criterion.

So on what basis can we say, speaking as scientists, that the theory of divine Creation is in any way "inferior" to the theory of the Common Ancestor in accounting for the facts of reality (in particular, for the rise of life and its articulation in the biological diversity we see all around us)?

Both theories rest on indirect evidence. The question is: Which one best accounts for the evolution of the universe? (Not just the biota.)

I'd love to explore this problem further, in due course, if anyone's interested in pursuing it....

Thank you oh so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind thoughts and encouragements!

[ I'd love to explore this problem further, in due course, if anyone's interested in pursuing it.... ]

I would... The presense of DNA'osaurs(of all kinds) on this planet ask many pregnant questions.. Like why the extreme minutia of thousands maybe millions of little uniquenesses of this planets position and cosmology that allows "life" to proliferate and swarm.. With humans being the absolute top of the food chain..

And not only that but that according to scientific "legend and myth".. A primate evolved to invent GOD.. and then invented a scientific community hell bent on disproving that, that, God exists..

Heck Yes I would appreciate a discussion like that..

[[So to put it crudely: Okay, God is “undetectable” by physical means.]]

I know you didn’t address me, but htis brings up a good point- the actual eyewitness accounts of ancient civilizations are also lacking, yet we have no problem believing they existed based purely on logical and correct annalysis’ of the evidences available. It is no different with detecting God, or at hte very least, an intelligence when we examine the evidences- which coincidently, have more evidnece to support in relation to the violations of nature than do the hypothesis of Macroevolution which must have violated Natural laws to a much higher degree inthat every species would have had to continually violate the natural laws and biological truths at every single step of the supposed macroevolutionary process- and, not only violate it trillions of times, but doing so in an ever increasing law violating manner all while resisting the negatives that impeed the law violating progressions as higher and higher natural complexities and irreducible complexities ‘evolved’ (Were the process of Macroevolution a reality).

[[Both theories rest on indirect evidence.]]

Ah- but one theory is more scientifically valid in terms of obeying natural laws, while hte other, as mentioned above, is implausible due to biological impossibilities and the ‘abilities’ of nature to superceed the laws.

So to put it crudely: Okay, God is "undetectable" by physical means. But by the very same standard, so is the Common Ancestor so beloved to Darwin's evolution theory.
Robert Herrmann usefully points out that "Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors." Neither God nor the Common Ancestor qualifies in terms of this criterion.
So on what basis can we say, speaking as scientists, that the theory of divine Creation is in any way "inferior" to the theory of the Common Ancestor in accounting for the facts of reality (in particular, for the rise of life and its articulation in the biological diversity we see all around us)?
Both theories rest on indirect evidence. The question is: Which one best accounts for the evolution of the universe? (Not just the biota.)

What an excellent challenge! I do hope someone will engage - but I won't hold my breath. The typical correspondent these days won't touch such points at all.

Thank you so much for all your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!