Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
A naturally-created biology is constrained by the natural laws in our universe so cannot look like anything. We can test any natural explaination against observed natural laws.
A supernatural-created biology on the otherhand is not constrained by natural laws, and therefore cannot be tested. It could literally look like anything and not be a contradiction.
What requirement do you think the ToE places on biology?
The two simplest are that organisms can self-replicate and that replication is not perfect. These needn't be true under supernatural created biology but are critical for the ToE.
The ToE only remains standing because a naturalistic explanation is required 'a priori' in order to be 'scientific'. That was the point.
But there is a methological reason why that is so. It is because supernatuaral explainations cannot be tested and so their validity can neither be strengthed or weakened. Allowing them to be entertained as part of science would therefore waste time with no benefit.
If you are looking at a supernaturally-created universe and life, to limit your explanations to 'naturalistic-only' guarantees that you will get the wrong answer.
And entertaining supernatural explaiantions as well will only mean you never reach an answer.
In this case you would only get the right answer if you assumed the supernatural explaination.
Sorry, I don't open internet word documents.
Can you verbalize the argument yourself?
Oh, I see. Apparently you require that a supernaturally-created biology must consistently operate through supernatural effects. That would be your error.
Self-replication and imperfect replication are perfectly consistent with a supernaturally-created biology. No requirement for no or perfect reproduction there.
Evolution's purported 'events' occurring thousands, millions or billions of years ago likewise cannot be tested. The evidence supposedly 'supporting' evolution is also consistent with a created biology that is in decline. Nothing there.
Entertaining supernatural explanations as you understand them might have that effect, but a supernaturally-created biology is not required to operate as you imply, therefore there is no reason to think that you can never reach any answer.
Your arguments are only valid by *assuming* they are the only valid restrictions, no way to test that. But then you have moved into the metaphysical realm yourself, so what were you saying?
Nothing there to counter my argument wrt geocentricity.
What was your point, anyway?
Try reading the article.
Oh I did and I know that it applies just as much to your position as to mine.
The question is... do you realize that?
I will ask again. Did you have a point?
Oh, I know. You don't have one but want to imply that the article refutes what I said somehow.
Common tactic.
Seen it a million times.
I never said or implied it refutes your cosmology. Only that your alternate mappings of cosmology are commonplace and irrelevant.
Science ignores anything that doesn't suggest research.
Another World Net Daily article on the Discovery Institute is hardly news. Scientists, doctors, and engineers are people. It is possible to find all manner of obscure and minority viewpoints among them. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people working in scientific and biological disciplines accept natural selection and descent with modification as being best explanation for the evidence we have. Both the fossil record and DNA analysis strongly support evolutionary theory, and our understanding of fossil evidence and DNA evidence is crosschecked with our understanding of other physical sciences such as physics and chemistry. To suggest that it is a theory on its last legs or facing serious opposition with scientific circles is disingenuous at best.
Evolution has been in crisis since 1859. Not a year goes by when it isn't abandoned by science.
As I said, it applies equally to heliocentrism as one of those 'alternate mappings of cosmology' that is commonplace and irrelevant.
You would agree that heliocentrism is ignored as an object of research, wouldn't you? That makes it irrelvant and it certainly is commonplace.
That's because, as Sir Fred Hoyle stated, the two models have been determined to be dynamically equivalent and there is no additional scientific knowledge to be discovered there.
Nice try, but you merely show the equivalence of the heliocentric and geocentric models, not the 'inferiority' of geocentrism nor the 'superiority' of heliocentrism.
I doubt that you understand it at that level, however.
So much for your 'psychotic' comment in post 1098. You are shown to be as uninformed as I said in post 1099 and as the one who could be 'twelve' as you indicated in post 1100.
In the meantime, world famous critics of evolution like Behe, Dembski and Denton, abandon their opposition to common descent.
Your problem is that your are boring. You are definitely in the running for the all time top ten most boring posters on crevo threads. You have spent countless posts arguing that the cosmos can be mapped to a geocentric model.
Something that has as much utility as counting angels on a pinhead. Not since "felt gravity" have we been so riveted.
Appealing to 'truth by popularity' is the well-known fallacy of 'appeal to popularity'. Particularly when followed on by the tired deception that fossils represent a 'record' and that DNA 'analysis' is independent of an assumption of common descent. Both are firmly based on that assumption. Now that's disingenuous.
You would also need to understand that the fossil 'record' and DNA 'analysis' are metaphysical interpretations of evidence based on an 'a priori' requirement of naturalism. Science is strictly limited to natural explanations, therefore it should be no surprise that only natural explanations are allowed.
Then ask yourself whether limiting yourself to naturalistic explanations is appropriate if you are indeed looking at a supernatural creation or whether it guarantees a wrong answer.
Once you understand that, you could begin your search for specific *evidence* that uniquely supports evolution. You won't find any. The 'support' for the theory is wholly in the 'interpretation' of the data.
Most evos just can't grasp that fact, however and really aren't interested in doing that much thinking.
It's not that I'm boring, it's that you don't understand the arguments. If you understood them, you would realize that they totally undermine the supposed 'scientific' basis for a belief in evolution and heliocentricity and show it as completely 'begging the question'.
And there have not been 'countless' posts on geocentricity. That thread just started in the past few days.
Nice strawman finish, btw.
I do understand. You are smarter than all the scientists who have lived in the past 200 years.
We should all be worshipping you instead of laughing our asses off.
Looks like you really like that 'appeal to popularity' fallacy. Like I should blindly accept what Behe, Dembski and Denton say.
Is it because evolutionists blindly follow along that they think everyone else should too?
Disingenuous at best.
Oh you like the 'appeal to popularity' fallacy too.
Might as well.
You have no effective arguments and are reduced to ridiculing that which you cannot refute and refuse to reconsider.
Ah, more of the 'appeal to ridicule' fallacy.
You are impressive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.