Replies

“The fact you posted this statement means you are ignorant about science.”

No. It illustrates the total failure of those who conflate scientism with science.

As I said before, the debate isn’t even about science. It is about philosophy. And the fact that you can not tell the difference is a very good indicator you are a practitioner of scientism.

“You do not know what a Scientific Theory is (hint: it is NOT a guess all grown up).”

You need to quit listening to voices if you want to claim I am confusing a theory with a guess. That’s either a straw man or a delusion on your part.

You do not know what a scientific theory is. A hypothesis does not become a theory if it is not falsifiable.

The theory that speciation results from adaptation by natural selection is well supported. Because it is not directly observable generally but is testable, it is theoretical.

Adaptation can also occur as the result of artificial selection. Therefore, some speciation is likely the result of artificial selection. This includes domesticated animals, including commensal, prey, and targeted for draft groups.

Abiogenesis has never been observed. The only thing remotely resembling it is the supposed creation of life in a lab, but this has so far been a genetic manipulation of existing life. And if it actually ever does occur it may only support Intelligent Design rather than natural, unaided abiogenesis.

The broader assumptions of TToE include LUCA which is not observable, testable, falsifiable, or defensible. It is pure speculation.

Dawkins claims that any modern animal in the Precambrian would falsify it. But that simply isn’t true. First, the fossil index is the primary dating tool for geologic time. Second, all so-called “predictions” to support common descent are tautological. If my magic is real, then the sun will come up tomorrow. Ta-da. They are not falsifiable because there is no alternative being compared. The historical record that God created life in a certain order is not considered because it is not a scientific theory. But then again, neither was the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

If we were to apply this supposed scientific rigor to the history of the computer, for example, we would find that all software has a common descent. We would have to throw out the historicity of this claim. But we could make many sorts of wild “predictions” which would confirm our own scientific version of history. But it still would not be history.

The existence of life and even the universe itself is obvious evidence of a Creator. There are areas of truth and learning that have NOTHING to do with scientific theory. If we were driving down a road and observed a turtle on top of a fence post, we would not use a scientific theory to assess how the turtle got there. We would not assume that the turtle was unique and had climbing or flying capabilities. We would not assume that there was a recent flood that we missed but which allowed the turtle to swim and come to rest on the fence post. No, common sense would immediately tell us that some person played a cruel joke on the turtle by putting him where he could not get down.

Unfortunately, practitioners of scientism throw common sense out the window.

We can observe species that have remained relatively unchanged through remarkable periods of apparent time.

We can also observe adaptation occurring at a much more rapid rate than TToE suggests. And yet we do not observe the degree of speciation that would be necessary to support the broader claims.

The data which supports speciation also supports, obviously, that certain species share common ancestors. However, it does not follow that there must be a universal common ancestor. Species may also merge by hybridization or obligate endosymbiosis. None of the supposed tests of UCD can distinguish the results if all life descended from a variety of original life forms.

None of these “tests” produce any results that would not be expected if a multitude of original life forms were created simultaneously. And all of the genetic evidence supports a universal common Creator who, like a good computer programmer, practiced reusability of code.

TToE has itself evolved into an MLM monstrosity which equivalates organizational convenience with scientific rigor. It is nothing more to science than the Dewey Decimal system is to libraries. And speculations about the origins of man based on TToE are like trying to validate the contents of a book based on the number it has been assigned by the Library of Congress.

The most important questions of life, science can not answer. Practitioners of scientism actually think scientific theories are foundational to truth. It’s the other way around.

Saying “God did it” is no more of an assault on Occam’s razor than Darwin’s universal descent which he inferred from analogy, in his own words.

The possibility of there even being science is because of God. He created order from chaos. He arranged time so that we can discover principles through causality. He placed the moon with a size, mass, and orbit that are too precise to be a coincidence. He built the earth to sustain life. Ignoring this is like believing in flying turtles. We don’t need science to know where man came from. Science can never solve the riddle of human existence or our purpose for existing because that is outside of the domain of science.

Yeah, I said it. Science doesn’t work that way.