You just ignored it again, while claiming not to!
GourmetDan:"You didn't answer the question because it is just as unanswerable as the one you ask."
Of course I answered your question. You just don't like the answer. You asked, what biological systems could NOT have been created by God? I answered: none. But let's get rid of the double negatives and say this directly:
God not only could have, but DID create all biological systems, and every other system you might want to mention. Whether He did it in six seconds, or six days, or six billion years is a matter for study and analysis.
And, we have two basic sources for information on the ages of things: the Bible, which says God did everything in six days, and science, which says it took billions of years.
So, which are we to believe? Well, to me it's pretty simple: if God did it in six days, He obviously wanted to make things look like it took billions of years. Why? I have no real idea, could only speculate. Perhaps God wishes to stretch our minds beyond the confines of the immediate here and now?
But I want to switch to an even more important point, which needs to be stressed and stressed again in all these debates:
In no way, shape or form is SCIENCE to be considered "ULTIMATE TRUTH." It's not, never was, never will be. "Science" is simply one way -- the scientific method -- not the only way, of looking at reality.
Instead, by definition, science is a highly disciplined way of looking for NATURAL explanations of PHYSICAL-MATERIAL occurrences. So, when you introduce the Supernatural, then by definition, it's no longer science, but now theology.
BroJoeK:"Answer: a Universe around 15 billion years, Earth around 4 billion, multi-celled life around 500 million, ape-like pre-humans beginning around 5 million years ago, etc."
GourmetDan:"That's not a scientific answer. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent based on the non sequitur of assuming philosophical naturalism. Science is observable, testable and repeatable. What part of your just-so story above is any of those things?"
Such nonsense! In fact, those dates ARE what science says about ages of the Universe, etc. Of course, you are not theologically required to believe those dates, but you cannot claim your disbelief is SCIENTIFICALLY based, because that's a pure premeditated lie.
Here's the truth: science is what it is, and you are not it. You represent theology trying to impose yourself on science, an attempt which, if successful, then by definition, must destroy science.
Bottom line: you can believe whatever you want to believe, but you can't call it science when it's not.
GroumetDan:"No one has denied virtually everything in science. Pointing out fallacies in thinking around evolution is not 'denying virtually everything in science'. If that's been your basic point, you have missed the whole point of the discussion."
Here's the truth: when you deny the ages that science reports, then you also deny the sciences which produced those ages. Those sciences include everything from biology to geology, physics, astronomy, to chemistry and many more. So, you cannot deny evolution without also denying virtually ALL of science. And that's a fact.
Nope, I just didn't respond in the manner you so desperately require.
"Of course I answered your question. You just don't like the answer. You asked, what biological systems could NOT have been created by God? I answered: none. But let's get rid of the double negatives and say this directly:"
And of course I answered your question. You just don't like the answer.
"God not only could have, but DID create all biological systems, and every other system you might want to mention. Whether He did it in six seconds, or six days, or six billion years is a matter for study and analysis."
No it isn't. We already know the answer. 6 days about 6,000 years ago. There is no observation that invalidates this proposal, only philosophically naturalistic interpretations that claim to do so. Only someone who puts the word of man above the Word of God thinks it's 'a matter for study and analysis'.
"And, we have two basic sources for information on the ages of things: the Bible, which says God did everything in six days, and science, which says it took billions of years."
Stop personifying a method. Methods say absolutely nothing. Only men speak and they do so based on their philosophical beliefs.
"So, which are we to believe? Well, to me it's pretty simple: if God did it in six days, He obviously wanted to make things look like it took billions of years. Why? I have no real idea, could only speculate. Perhaps God wishes to stretch our minds beyond the confines of the immediate here and now?"
No, he obviously didn't want to make things look like it took billions of years. That's an old pagan idea that has become the dogma of philosophical naturalism. Nothing can deviate from that dogma or the 'men' will say it isn't 'science'. The method still works just fine.
"But I want to switch to an even more important point, which needs to be stressed and stressed again in all these debates:"
Nope. You already missed the most important point. That's why you can't see your error.
"In no way, shape or form is SCIENCE to be considered "ULTIMATE TRUTH." It's not, never was, never will be. "Science" is simply one way -- the scientific method -- not the only way, of looking at reality."
That's correct. The men practicing science have absolutely no interest in truth. Their interest is in creating just-so stories based on their 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism.
"Instead, by definition, science is a highly disciplined way of looking for NATURAL explanations of PHYSICAL-MATERIAL occurrences. So, when you introduce the Supernatural, then by definition, it's no longer science, but now theology."
Except in the case of certain 'origins' theories like evolution, in which science commits the fallacy of assuming philosophical naturalism as the basis for the theory. When you introduce philosophy (either supernatural or natural), then by definition, it's no longer science, but philosophy.
"Such nonsense! In fact, those dates ARE what science says about ages of the Universe, etc. Of course, you are not theologically required to believe those dates, but you cannot claim your disbelief is SCIENTIFICALLY based, because that's a pure premeditated lie."
Such nonsense! You simply commit the same error as before, personifying a method and ignoring the 'a priori' philosophical beliefs of practitioners. 'Science' *says* NOTHING because it is a method and it's practitioners must enter into fallacy before making philosophical statements. You are not philosophically required to believe that, but you cannot claim your disbelief is SCIENTIFICALLY based, because that a pure premeditated lie.
"Here's the truth: science is what it is, and you are not it. You represent theology trying to impose yourself on science, an attempt which, if successful, then by definition, must destroy science."
Here's the truth: science is what is it, and you are not it. You represent philosophical naturalism trying to hide behind a method and pretend that the method 'speaks'. Methods cannot be personified, people do that based on their 'a priori' beliefs. Science cannot be 'destroyed', only the philosophical foundation exposed for what it is.
"Here's the truth: when you deny the ages that science reports, then you also deny the sciences which produced those ages. Those sciences include everything from biology to geology, physics, astronomy, to chemistry and many more. So, you cannot deny evolution without also denying virtually ALL of science. And that's a fact."
Here's the truth: when you claim that 'science' reports ages, you personify a method and ignore the 'a priori' assumptions of the adherents. And to claim that one must deny all of the method for failing to accept the philosophy is a fallacy, not a fact.