“Going to Montana soon, going to be a dental floss tycoon.” Ah, I can see it all now Coyoteman: You riding out on your trusty little pony, inspecting your extensive fields of dental floss, zircon-encrusted tweezers in hand…. LOL!
To reprise progress so far, it appears you accept the distinction given by Robert Herrmann, that both divine creation theory and common ancestor theory are based in “indirect evidence.” But then you went on to claim that Common Ancestor theory was more valid, because it rests on “direct evidence” in a way that divine creation theory does not.
Am I clear on that distinction?
If so, may I respond: divine creation theory rests on direct evidence just as much as common ancestor theory does.
The problem is persons committed to common ancestor theory will select direct evidence that fits the initial presupposition of the theory. Nothing that does not fit the prediction of the initial presupposition will be selected or qualified as valid direct evidence.
This was the point that r9etb was drilling down to, when he said:
The (B) statement that "mathematical models and calculations are only useful if they accurately and correctly represent the data," is clearly at odds with the practice of science. "The Data" are very often collected in response to the predictions, rather than the other way around. That particular (B) ends up being preposterous!Preposterous, and ultimately an example of circular reasoning.
So you might ask, why is the theory of divine creation any better? It, too, must rest on direct evidence in order to be true.
Yet you claim that there is no possible direct evidence available on this question. It is all fairies and demons, hallucinations, thus nothing substantial.
And all I can say (as a person not given to promoting fairies and demons) in response to that is: (1) There is plenty of “direct evidence,” for the person willing to see it. And (2) Given you are already married to your own theoretical presupposition, there is no reason why you should be looking for evidence that contradicts it. Your presupposition dictates the selection of your evidence. Which will in turn tend to confirm your presupposition.
For myself, I’m prepared to say the direct evidence for divine creation is overwhelming to any person who is not pre-committed to being blind to it. [Which “willful blindness” describes the “atheist problem” in a nutshell, it seems to me.]
We evidently live in a universe that is “primed for life.” To be so primed involves recognition that certain universal constants (estimated at something like 200+ in number) must be just so, and not only that, but must all function in harmonious accord in order to have produced, and to continue to maintain, the universe that we observe today.
This recognition flies in the face of the scientistic, atheist account of the emergence of order in the universe.
The atheist vision imagines that there was no beginning to the universe. It just always was, entailing an eternal, primordial chaos that nonetheless somehow or other became capable of self-organization to the point that life could emerge, albeit only circumstantially, accidentally. The idea being: If there is enough time, anything can happen. And the good things that happen, tend to “stick.”
And yet the great mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated the possibility that the universe that we observe today could have arisen by pure chance at 10300 to one — which is generally regarded as a mathematical impossibility.
These are inconvenient facts for orthodox Darwinists. And so they are generally ignored in that community.
Which is why we theists continue to have disputes with atheists. Theists — it seems to me — are committed to the question: “What is truth?” This was Pilot’s question; and we all know how he answered it.
Suffice it to say that theists do not answer this question as atheists are wont to do. Atheists say: There is no truth; there is only scientific discovery.
Which makes me laugh out loud. What discovery is legitimate, if it is not true?
And wherein resides the criterion by which truth is finally tested?
Atheists typically deny there is such a thing.
So, ought reasonable people to consider the atheist “reasonable?”
You speak of Atheists as if we are the Borg which isn’t correct.
Would you consider it fair for me to say that you share the beliefs of Hitler simply because you both proclaimed yourselves Christian?
For that is what your post was, a sermon on your religious belief. Oh, you attempted to cast it in terms used by science -- but it was religion, not science.
In an attempt to equate religion and science you wrote:
divine creation theory rests on direct evidence just as much as common ancestor theory does
But this is not accurate. And in fact shortly you admit:
There is plenty of “direct evidence,” for the person willing to see it.Scientific evidence can be observed by anyone, regardless of belief. Don't believe in gravity? Makes no difference. Are you a Hindu? No problem, you can do science as well as anyone else.Your presupposition dictates the selection of your evidence. Which will in turn tend to confirm your presupposition.
For myself, I’m prepared to say the direct evidence for divine creation is overwhelming to any person who is not pre-committed to being blind to it.
What can't be observed by scientists is the supernatural. If there was evidence, then science could observe it in some way (and it wouldn't be supernatural).
But the evidence you are claiming can only be seen by TRVE BELIEVERS. Like so many claims of the supernatural and paranormal; the evidence disappears as soon as scientific controls are imposed. Look at the faith healing of Peter Popoff (conducted at 39.17 mhz).
Your next attempt:
We evidently live in a universe that is “primed for life.” To be so primed involves recognition that certain universal constants (estimated at something like 200+ in number) must be just so, and not only that, but must all function in harmonious accord in order to have produced, and to continue to maintain, the universe that we observe today.
Nice try, but no cigar. Life has adapted to the conditions. Adaptation to changing conditions has spurred evolution. If the conditions were not correct life would not have begun. None of what you claim is anything but circular reasoning designed to support your particular religious beliefs and to fill in for a lack of evidence.
And the mathematical model you present? Rubbish. Calculate the odds on your birth, starting with single-celled critters. Odds are pretty high but they're meaningless, for here you are.
Suffice it to say that theists do not answer this question as atheists are wont to do. Atheists say: There is no truth; there is only scientific discovery.
Which makes me laugh out loud. What discovery is legitimate, if it is not true?
And wherein resides the criterion by which truth is finally tested?
Atheists typically deny there is such a thing.
Another fog of words that means nothing. Have you read the definitions I post periodically? You really should.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.But you, based on your religion, claim to have the absolute TRVTH! (So do the world's 4,300 other religions.)
Fine. But don't pretend that its science.
One would think that an atheist somewhere would at least say,, If there is NO God well then there OUGHT to be one in a perfect universe...
This was the point that r9etb was drilling down to, when he said: