Would this Origin of life model work?

[Dan_Eastwood]

Let’s start with the easy ones …

@Meerkat_SK5

Remember, Both languages don’t have to be the “same” or both possess “meaning” in order for the argument to work.

If this is the case, you don’t have any definition for “Information” at all, and your request …

explain why those studies do not show how DNA and human language are analogous or that this analogy was only meant as a metaphor.

… is nonsense. You are using information as a buzz-word to make your theory sound “sciency”.

@Meerkat_SK5

If you already provided the fatal objection showing how DNA and human information have analogous mathematical structures and I just missed it, then just copy and paste it in your next response, please.

Whatever could you possibly mean by that?

@Meerkat_SK5

For all these reasons, I am not able to take your objection that divine action cannot be tested seriously given your lack of expertise in this area. That’s why I am asking you ,in your next response, to focus your attention on the part of my hypothesis that does rely on your expertise in information theory.

Expertise in testing hypotheses does not apply only to subjects in which one has expertise. Area expertise helps in translating ideas into testable form.

@Meerkat_SK5

"(B) Consciousness is a separate quality, distinct from physical actions and not controlled by physical laws, that has always been in the universe. Descartes’ ‘dualism’, religious viewpoints, and other spiritual approaches assume consciousness has been in the universe all along, e.g. as the ‘ground of being’, ‘creator’ or component of an omnipresent ‘God’ ……

My emphasis added. No objection to the assumption itself, only to assuming that which you hope to prove.

@Meerkat_SK5

I actually did not mean to say that the common design model is derived from the Genesis account. What I meant to say is that it is “consistent” with the Genesis account. The only thing I am assuming is that Jesus designed and guided the evolutionary process in a common design manner because this has not been confirmed yet.

That is not your only assumption. You are assuming God (Jesus) exists, which is also what you hope to prove. It’s a circular argument.

@Meerkat_SK5

But, it is a testable assumption and we have scientific evidence for almost everything else regarding the theory and model, which I will showcase in the next topic.

I will read the next topic closely, at least the opening statement. I repeat my advice to make your statement as short as possible, with definitions as appropriate following the statement.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

That’s exactly what science cannot do. There are no exceptions or indirect workarounds. If you maintain that there are, then you should be able to cite undisputed examples.

Sure, look into this source for all the examples and here is a snippet of the article:

“The problem with these attempts to divide science neatly into two piles is that, as Sober observes, a given science, and even a given scientist, can switch between approaches in the quest to address a single question. Geologists …

Geologists (outside of AiG) generally aren’t trying to prove the existence of God. You understand the distinction?

@Meerkat_SK5

If what you mean by “nothing magical about information” is that mathematics are only conceptual ideas that could only be created by mental processes, then you would be wrong.

That is not what I mean. Quoting for clarity …

A testable common design model is essentially providing an indirect way of testing for the divinity of Christ. So we actually can address this scientifically despite what you said.

No. You cannot. It’s not science, and to my best understanding it is also bad theology. A friend puts it this way …

@AllenWitmerMiller

The Christian doctrine includes the term transcendent as an attribute of God.
In religious studies we define transcendence as independence from the material world and existence in a realm beyond all physical laws known to science. That would surely suggest that a transcendent deity would not readily be subject to the scientific method. (I sometimes have to remind my Christian brethren of this fundamental doctrine which they all claim to hold but sometimes forget.)

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

What you lack is any way to distinguish between the course of evolution and acts of God (to falsify acts of god). All of ID has this same problem.

Sure, here’s how.
[clipped a section about Lenski]

That only works if God chooses to reveal himself, or not at all is God interferes. We’ve been over that before.

@Meerkat_SK5

Yes, and you do realize that you are arguing that God is not a theory at all , right? A big contrast I might add.

No, I was arguing that your hypothesis cannot be falsified. I’m not sure where your goalpost is now, but the requirement is “the possibility of evidence against”. The existence of God is beyond science. The divinity of Jesus would require a scientific definition of divinity, which should be be possible.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

The most likely explanation is that you misunderstand him because you are NOT a “ theoretical physicist who specializes in quantum and classical mechanics.” I know just enough physics to know better than to claim expertise in QM, but I at least understand some of the related math.

It’s a legit possibility but not likely because the subject matter involves the God hypothesis, which I am more of an expert on than either one of you given that I am an apologist.

We agree that you are an apologist, and a lot better than some I have encountered. Like those others you assume that which you hope to prove, and think you can redefine science. You hold that “God will not act against His nature”, which sets you above most. You might be surprised how easy it is to trap armature apologists into making the Omphalos Argument.