Is There Visible Proof of God?


(Guy Coe) #101

Are you somehow schizophrenic?
First, you say the analogy is false.
Then, you try to selectively apply it.
Yet another mental block.

(Guy Coe) #102

Next, you make an erroneous claim about “a paper I’ve cited,” and when challenged, you prevaricate to the experiment I cited, assuming I am not aware of other approaches, despite my explicit framing of questions on the most cogent mechanism for enantiomeric excess known in nature, viz., circularly-polarized light.
Then you went on to pretend I’d never asked those questions, assuming I was a “creationist” without any real understanding SIMPLY BECAUSE that’s what suits your narrative.
No, my friend, I’m not the one refusing to engage or look at the evidence.

(John Mercer) #103


Correct. Your analogy is false, because we’re not “hearing the same evidence.”

No, I corrected it. That was the reason why I prefaced the correct analogy with,

What makes you think it’s the same analogy?

(Guy Coe) #104

Seriously, dude, slow down --you’re just embarrassing yourself.


Wow, just… wow.

(John Mercer) #106

Where would your engagement with the evidence come from, if not from a paper? Perhaps you don’t know this, but papers are the way in which we scientists present evidence.

You keep providing additional evidence that you’re looking at hearsay and merely pretending to be looking at evidence.

(Guy Coe) #107

If you don’t understand the topic of homochirality, and the conundrum it presents, I suggest you read up.

(John Mercer) #108

I’m quite aware of it, thanks.

I think you’re missing something important, which is that there’s zero reason to suspect that the first life required homochirality, just because life as we know it today features it.

So again, if the word “abiogenesis” triggers you to talk about a 66-year-old experiment and nothing else that’s more recent, we’re definitely not “hearing the same evidence” and your “Twelve Angry Men” analogy is invalid.

You’re the one ignoring mountains of evidence, Guy.


The problem is that creationists don’t interpret the evidence, even if they hear it. For example, I asked you for the list of criteria that creationists use to interpret fossils. I bet you can’t come up with those criteria because creationists don’t interpret fossils. Could you tell us what features a creationist would need to see in a fossil in order for them to accept it as being transitional between humans and an ancestor shared with other apes? I doubt it.

(Guy Coe) #110

Thanks for offering that. I haven’t missed that. I happen to know that no hypothetical first living cell has ever been offered up that could function without the significant presence of enantiopure characteristics, as they are essential to the information carrying capacity of the biomolecules needed to sustain life.

(John Mercer) #111

Your exclusive focus on a 66-year-old experiment suggests that you do not know anything of the sort.

You have not provided a speck of evidence to support your claim that enantiopure characteristics are “essential to the information carrying capacity of the biomolecules needed to sustain life.” That’s creationist gobbledygook.

(Guy Coe) #112

I have no interest in such, since I don’t deny common ancestry, myself.
But you’re actually talking about classifying a fossil within a tree, not examining it in the first place.

(Guy Coe) #113

Dude, now you’re just embarrassing yourself, too. The Miller-Urey experiment didn’t even address chirality, so how could I be “exclusively focused” on it? Go back and read my questions on the previous posts.


I am talking about interpreting the fossil record.

(John Harshman) #115

So you’re not a Reasons to Believe supporter in that particular instance?

(T J Runyon) #116

Maybe that’s why God created through evolution. Creates a nice epistemic distance. I mean look at all the atheists who are atheists because of evolution. Creation through evolution may cause someone to more thoroughly seek God or cause you to help someone seek God. Swinburne has argued these are two great goods that come from epistemic distance.

Also, I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen people say things like what you just said but also say design (in the ID sense) is obvious. There is serious tension between those two statements. @DaleCutler

(Herculean Skeptic) #117

This really resonates with me. I wouldn’t have said it as well, but I appreciate it.

(Guy Coe) #118

Neither Faz Rana, nor, that I know of, A.J. Roberts affirm common descent --at least not without significant qualification. I don’t know whether any of their other scholars affirm or deny it. So, in cautiously replying to your question, I can only speak for myself, and I see no biblical need to deny common descent; in fact, I see some passages which seem to suggest it. This is no big leap for progressive creationists.
I do know they are working fairly closely on some issues with our host, @swamidass , and have considered inviting him to try out a stint as an satellite adjunct scholar, despite that difference.
It’s a sign of their openness to the evidence that allows them this “flexibility” which, to my mind, swirls around an issue of no particular adverse Biblical consequence, given his affirmation of an historical Adam and Eve, and how the GA insights can inform members of several “competing” theological camps.
Hope that answers your question and establishes a context for my comments.

(John Harshman) #119

I’d have to say that it is, unless you mean something quite different by “progressive creationist” than most people do. Progressive creation is usually considered to involve the de novo creation of “kinds”, without genealogical descent from any previous population, throughout earth history. It’s incompatible with common descent (except for descent within kinds, and kinds are strictly constrained — less than phyla at the very most).

Faz Rana and A. J. Roberts do more than fail to affirm common descent, as far as I can tell. They expressly deny it, and so does RTB as an organization. Do you disagree?

Of course your willingness to accept common descent is a good thing.

(Guy Coe) #120

The dispute over labels is, to me, an unnecessary one. Progressive creationism characterizes the evidence from a theological perspective, without really getting down in the weeds much about elucidating the means by which God created. I see common descent as a feature of such means; others don’t, or are cautious about seeming to overcommit to a view which usually tries to establish itself without reference to God. For them, it’s “Design VERSUS Descent” --which, to me, is a false dichotomy.
Given my comments about evolution’s cogency, and yet, its remaining inadequacies, it pushes your buttons as though its an entire rejection, which it is not.
The cautious nature of RTB’s handling of the question of common descent, and yet its commitment to thoroughgoing scientific inquiry, is indicative to me of a healthy Christian mindset.
You might be surprised at the instances where they go out of their way to steer Christians away from bad arguments and false characterizations which arise from within the Christian community.
See here, for example, from Jeff Zweerink: