Thank you for your reply. Now I understand a little better what you were saying.
You are correct that I do not consider the hypothetical atoms as evidence. The hypothesis could be correct but as we know a hypothesis sans evidence does not elucidate us on our natural physical world.
Not that it matters much but I’m just curious - does this notion have any connection to string theory? It seems to my limited understanding to at least occupy the same level of size and speculation.
But there is evidence of how flock of birds move - we can observe it. If we observed cells forming I would accept the observation as reality. Again, the belief that everything must be natural is as acceptable as evidence as Ken Ham saying the Bible says so.
Both are twisting facts because of their twisted religion.
I wrote where I am coming from - evidence and logic. And where I am not coming from for scientific evidence - any belief system.
What do you not understand? I’m in the dark on what you are asking.
I agree on the first part of that and I don’t see a question. I do see an excuse not to address the girdled rocks question.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
545
If eternity of nature, strong uniformitarianism at all scales, mediocrity, is not the factiest fact that ever there was, then utter absurdity rules, there is no (meaningless) order (order does not imply meaning) in chaos. Anything can happen whether it can or not.
Who is the ‘One’ you are addressing? Because it’s NOT me buddy. I’m not the dishonest one. I’m not making any claim to empiricism. I am making claim to logic. To science based (see uniformitarianism, mediocrity above) reason. The a-rational dogma, the bastardization, is entirely yours.
Why are you telling me what has been obvious for over a century? What has our mediocre, infinitesimal universe got to do with the fact of eternal nature? Why do you insult our intelligence? Including your own especially.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
546
What’s that? In what way is the attenuation of flu strain virulence evidence that flu is failing to mutate new virulent strains? That flu is becoming extinct? Or even milder?
Either you missed my use of the word “like” in my analogy, i.e.
OR my simple analogy confused you.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
You would seem to me to have some difficulty handling Hebrews 11:1.
"For faith is the substance of things hoped for, the “proof/test” of things not seen [in the Greek, "ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων].
That verse affirms that there are “propositions” that are true and can and should be believed in spite of the invisibility of the proof. If you accepted that, you might disdain “the proofs” of propositions somewhat less. But that is your hurdle to jump over, not mine. We differ, and I move on to other things.
You would do better to work on the confusion that analogies cause you. That one is false, and so your conclusion is meaningless. Ergo, I am amused, but not offended by your intended insult.
Really, I already answered the questions you asked in this most recent reply, in my earlier reply to you:
I see I have really wasted my time stepping into this fray. Greater minds than mine have attempted dialogue with you to no avail. I see no reason to frustrate myself.
Ade.
Even Encode has critiqued Encode. Most junk remains junk, and even if there is some marginal utility for some small such regions, that is not significant enough to counter drift.
That is because Beehee is well known to be agnostic on the issue. I think that what in fact happens here is that evolutionary based critics of his work attempt to claim he is a biblical creationist in order to discredit him, and the creation side distance themselves from ID because it takes no position on the creation account timeline.
I would venture to say that the creator of Biologos may even agree with Behe on ID…I would be interested in reading where the two agree.
I’m certain that Behes agnosticism on the creation timeline is purposeful…it forces the discussion knowing that if one scientifically proposes ID, philosophically the dilemma for Christians is the requirement for accepting the biblical account. It’s theologically damaging not to read it exactly as written. The witness is too extensive and to intertwined within its pages not to do so. As K Wise says, take out the parts that conflict with evolution and the book is in tatters.
I’m just wondering…are not the successive strains of COVID less deadly than their predecessors? It appears so from what has been presented publicly. Would not that appear to be a viral example that is contrary to your claim?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
553
What claim? Covid has become more contagious therefore less lethal. In what way is it becoming extinct? Are you saying that the less contagious more lethal strains of three years ago which don’t exist anymore are examples of extinction? Flu has a far more complex life cycle in multiple hosts. It has multiple variants a year and the one that dominates in the southern hemisphere won’t necessarily dominate in the northern. Ebola is so lethal it can’t spread, but it has its niche and shows no sign of extinction, unlike smallpox.
Behe clearly states the Earth is old. I’ve seen video of him saying so. He stays away from speaking on theology as he is a biochemist. He’s also catholic and has no issue with any science based on his faith. His issues is based on what the biochemistry shows versus what is claimed.
You seem to have an acquaintance or acceptance of only the Ken Ham theology.
Reasoning from such a position to those not of Ham’s theology will not result in a correct understanding of that person.
I have no idea of what you’re trying to say with quoting me along with your response.
But I do see you clearly saying a second time it is a waste of your time. And doing so with a parting shot.
So it seems there is no desire to continue to attempt a dialogue from either of us.
When I look to how the Watchmaker made the watch it can only be determined by looking at the watch itself. An evidentiary process.
You stated the below so it seems that empirical evidence is not the reason for your claim on the physical, natural world.
Yes I wasn’t clear on the meaning of your sentence. Since the word “like” can be used to introduce an example I mistook it as the first example and the “constituent parts” as a second example. I understand now that you are giving one example.
No insult was intended. And it is quite true that any belief substituted as empirical evidence are twisted facts and twisted religion.
The later is Klax quote although he definitely considers other’s beliefs to be twisting but not his own belief.
What do you mean by physical, natural world? Your neighborhood? The earth? The solar system? The Milky Way Galaxy? or the cosmos, i…e. all of reality, a.k.a. the whole “sh-bang”.
“Empirical evidence” is, commonly, evidence which can be touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen with the eyes, … with or without technological assistance. In that case, you’re half-right and half-wrong. I’m ready and willing to accept empirical evidence, I’m just not ready and willing to rule out reason as the basis for a claim.
Your position appears to be that, if there’s no empirical evidence for a claim about the physical, natural world, then the claim is “a faith statement”. And that is not necessarily true, regardless what you and anybody say.
Your bastardization of science is due to the claim that your belief IS science. No one can add their faith with a claim that it is science.
The scope of science is the natural physical world. Your belief is that everything is the natural physical world. You conflate your faith as science based religion and then explain the evidence of the cell arising natural as science. What empirical evidence? None. And for your faith no empirical evidence is needed. Your faith already tells you. But you do not consider your faith to be your faith - you conflate it as science.
Replace any one else’s faith in that and you’ll fight it tooth and nail. But not your own faith.
Our scientific understanding of the natural, physical world is not elucidated by your or anyone else’s religion. You are twisting facts because of your twisted religion.