What scientific theory would this not apply to? Do you think a belief in guidance by God invalidates every single scientific theory in existence?
2 Likes
All theories that can account for the observation through the hypothesized mechanism. In the case of general relativity there is a mathematical model and it has been tested extensively.
Common descent can account for the nested hierarchy. You are saying that common descent is invalid because supernatural magic could produce the same pattern. Why couldn’t that same logic be used to invalidate every single scientific theory?
How does that rule out God guiding the bending of spacetime?
3 Likes
Common ancestry only accounts for the pattern of similarities and differences it is a partial explanation. It does not account for the mechanism of change.
The statement all life shares common ancestry implies reproduction alone.
Again there is a tested model here so you can eliminate God as a direct cause. What you cannot eliminate God for is the properties of matter that allow for space time curvature.
Although general relativity accounts for the movement of the earth and moon relative to each other and other objects in their vicinity, it does not account for how the earth and moon came to be.
General relativity is therefore wrong, according to your reasoning.
4 Likes
General relativity is not implying this claim by the use of ambiguous language. It has a model that has been rigorously tested against the claims of the theory.
OK. Sorry, what point do you think you are making?
3 Likes
But have you done so, Bill? This appears to be yet another ID hypothesis hidden under gross misrepresentations of clear, empirical facts.
1 Like
As pointed out by others, anything could be guided by God. So it’s no more misleading to leave this out than it is to leave out possible ‘guidedness’ of gravity or any other phenomenon or scientific theory. On my view, as both a theist and a determinist (philosophically), there is a sense in which everything could be said to be guided by God, as it was all determined at the moment of creation.
It isn’t misleading to say that universal common ancestry means all living organisms on earth are related, without saying explicitly that this is compatible with both guided and unguided mechanisms, since it should be logically obvious to most people that universal common ancestry, by itself, makes no claim as to whether evolution was guided or unguided.
Furthermore, any possible miscommunication between scientists and the general public on this particular issue has nothing to do with the actual verity of common ancestry. So I can only conclude that this is only another attempt on your part, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to change the subject from actual evidence against common ancestry (of which there seems to be none).
1 Like
Here is a paper with organ specific gene Venn diagrams.
The Venn diagrams in this paper have nothing at all to do with anything being discussed in this thread.
1 Like
Exactly. So Bill hadn’t bothered to examine any relevant evidence before making his grand, sweeping, empirical claim.
Bill, why are you pretending to be familiar with the evidence? Don’t you want to test your ID hypothesis?
1 Like
It is very misleading as evident of your belief in unguided common descent.
Did the courses in college teach you that common descent did not include a mechanism of change and that the mechanism could be God?
30% of the public believes the ancestral link between humans and chimps is guided by God. They see through the omission. Per pew research.
https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_19-02-11_darwinday420px/
Your whole post here was an attempt to support an ambiguous subject. When I started to argue against God guided common descent you then said how could I know the mind of the designer.
This showed that you were unable to defend the claim of God guided common descent. If we cannot know the mind of the designer then he could have used special creation instead or other means then common descent. The only way you made this argument was by leaving the mechanism of change ambiguous.
A tested (non ambiguous) mechanism is critical for a hypothesis to be validated.
This is true unless you spend of enough time to connect the dots. I was simply responding to Mercer request for evidence of a claim I made.
Bill’s guide to proving common ancestry wrong:
Step 1. Show Venn diagrams.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Common ancestry is wrong!
2 Likes
Then why don’t you connect then for us. I don’t believe that you believe that.
You were pretending to respond. There’s nothing there to support your claim.
2 Likes
I’m getting deja vu, haven’t I already answered this twice?
You are citing this statistic as though it agrees with your statement that scientists are being intentionally deceptive. But what it shows is that the public does understand that common ancestry is compatible with God-guided evolution, which is the opposite of your claim. In fact, I would probably consider myself part of the 30% that says humans were created by God through evolution.
Also your link is invalid, but I know the study you were talking about so it’s okay.
How did it show that??? The fact that humans can’t know the mind of God means that common descent is indefensible? Where are you getting this from?
1 Like
John your a blind advocate for evolutionary theory and you demonize the ID guys, Over the years you deny all contradictory evidence to evolutionary theory
Over time and during more appropriate posts I will connect the dots between organ gene Venn diagrams and species gene Venn diagrams and how this supports Behe’s method . A method you categorically deny for philosophical reasons…
This is getting really ridiculous, almost hilariously so. And we still have yet to see any scientific arguments against the verity of common ancestry itself, only arguments against unguided evolution.
2 Likes
And like this thread you have been vague in your answer. Was God guided common ancestry ever discussed in you science classes?