two important questions for Servant

No. What will happen is that the existence of God will cease to be a supernatural question, because God will suddenly be avaliable for direct observation. Of course not. But the new theory will have to explain all the evidence that evolution does. It can't simply wave it away like creationism tries to.When Einstein came up with relativity, it didn't make discoveries based on Newtonian physics stop working. But relativity had to explain why Newtonian mechanics could be wrong but yet give accurate results at certain scales.

There's no such rule. All evidence is acceptable. Perhaps you're thinking of Schraf's Message 51, where she says: She only says supernatural explanations are not acceptable, and nothing about evidence. Of course all properly gathered evidence is acceptable. But Schraf's statement contains the implicit assumption that supernatural explanations have no evidence. Evidence is anything apparent to us, directly or indirectly, through the five senses. So ironically, as soon as something supernatural can be perceived, it is no longer supernatural. There are no such rules here. However, we do try to keep topics in the right forum, and if this is something you'd like to delve into in detail then a thread about whether the supernatural is scientific probably belongs in Is It Science?. Scientifically, there is currently only one. Evolution is the only currently accepted explanation for speciation. If you want to open consideration up to all possibilities, scientific and non-scientific, then there are far more than two, for you have to consider the beliefs of all religions, and I guess of all dreamers and fantasy writers, too.Addressing this subthread's title, The only answer allowed is, there are no artificial limits placed upon allowable answers within science. But science *does* have a definition, and to be scientific something must have evidence, be replicable, and be falsifiable. If you want your proposal to be considered scientific, then you need evidence for your proposed mechanism, God.--Percy

I see the distinction. You stated it more clearly than I was able to. I think these two concepts may assist me in making my point.When God becomes observable will God be a theory? If God says 'I made the earth out of old material in six "days" and created Adam and Eve' will that be contrary to the evidence so make the theory of God unacceptable to scientists?Thank you Crashfrog. I truely do appreciate your patience in this. I look forward to your response.Bob, Alice, and Eve

No, but presumably, statements about God will be theories. Well, presuming that this really is God, and presuming that everybody knows that, then I imagine that the scientists will say something like "well, I guess we'll take your word for it, but why the deception, then? Why does everything look so damn old and evolved? Why, for instance, the broken pseudogenes that both apes and humans share?"I'm not adverse to creationism in principle, only in practice (and I imagine my view is shared by scientists). In practice it's not supported by the evidence and it's mechanisms are untestable. In practice its proponents are usually misinformed, naive, or outright charlatans. If it's nonetheless true, then God has some explaining to do, and I presume that the God of fellowship won't mind a question or two from the minds that he made to inquire?

I'm not convinced that "God" would qualify as a theory rather than a hypothesis. Celestial mechanics is a theory. The existence of at least some of the outer planets (Uranus and Neptune) was proposed as a hypothesis to explain apparent deviations from the theory. God's existence would then seem to be a hypothesis and the observations would be confirmatory evidence - similar to the observations of Uranus and Neptune.If the supposed "God" then claimed to have made the Earth in a literal six days around 6000 years ago we would have to weigh the evidence contrary to that against the evidence that the supposed "God" was indeed God. I would have to say that simply given the situation you propose I would find it hard to imagine how the evidence that we are indeed seeing God could be greater than that for the antiquity of the Earth. In that situation we would have to reject the hypothesis that what we see is in fact God. However if the weight of evidence were - somehow - reversed then the hypothesis should be accepted.

BAE, If I could interject. A hypothesis & theory are really the same thing, it is conventionally thought that a hypothesis is a more tentative proposition than a theory, however.A scientific theory or hypothesis must be based in observation & have falsifications. This is why God fails the scientific litmus test.Consider the notion of God 500 years ago, it was an anathema to suggest that God would let his creations perish. In naturalist terms, he would not let the species he created become extinct. At the time this was an alleged potential falsification. When it became clear that many types of creature had indeed become extinct it was attributed to the flood, etc etc. And this is the real bane of religious thought. There is no true falsification, you will always be able to attribute the newer understanding to God, which makes the whole idea have an explanatory power of zero. Anyone could stuff a religious fundie out of sight in an argument, s/he would simply sidestep & attribute my POV to God.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

quote:

---

A scientific theory or hypothesis must be based in observation & have falsifications. This is why God fails the scientific litmus test.

---

Exactly. What assay can I run in the lab to evidence God? What "God Free" controls can I run within the assay (ie null hypothesis)?For God to be testable, he has to be detectable through objective, physical measurements, not by a spiritual revelation. However, I can't imagine a believer pinning their whole religion on a labratory test, as can be seen by the ever shifting goal posts within creationism.

... was there any chance you intended to address my argument about paleobotany, in message 29: Simply telling me that there's no such pattern doesn't constitute an argument, because that's a false statement. There's no "interpretation" you can make of the fossil record that doesn't put complex plants on top and simple ones at the bottom.

Hi Percy,I think I may have responded to much of your post in my post to Crashfrog but I did want to acknowledge your fine statement(s). Thanks.To be sure I understand, I rephrase once more as follows: there can be no scientific evidence of the supernatural.I am not sure what you mean by "There are no such rules here." unless in the context of my misstatement above. Quetzal posted four rules of scientific evidence and no one disagreed with them.Finally, I agree that scientifically, there is only one explanation to our existence. I could editorialize but will pass since I think my involvement in this thread is finished.Thanks again,
BAE

I couldn't find any rules that anyone posted in the thread, so I assumed you were referring to forum rules. I don't think Quetzal ever posted to this thread, so this is something he posted in another thread?Anyway, if you have a different opinion about the rules of science or scientific evidence, you could discuss it in Is It Science?.--Percy

I hope that my thanks and closing comments are not an imposition on your good nature to this point. So, thank you......Crashfrog. I am confident that the God of fellowship will be available for questions. I have a list myself. In the mean time, I count on neighbors like you to keep me out of the groups you mentioned....PaulK. Possibly He will let us watch Him create another world in six whatevers?...Mark24 (and Loudmouth). I absolutely do not promote "goddidit" (is that how you spell it, Crashfrog?). Knowing how things work is important and is part of why we were created. I hope you will not be disappointed when things move from theory to fact, though....Percy. I assumed that the "rules of science" would apply to all discussions. I have not figured out what the name of each division/level here is (forum, topic, thread, ...). Quetzal posted the rules in "Age" I think. I do not disagree with the rules; just what I see as a misuse of them.Thanks again. It is a great experience to see your minds at work.Bob, Alice, and Eve

Right. But there is no "one-and-only-one" statement of the rules of evidence for science, so I don't feel I can discuss this without seeing the statement of the rules that you're talking about. Unfortunately, Quetzal didn't post to Age Correlations and an Old Earth, either, so I still haven't seen these rules.Since the subject of supernatural evidence has come up, my guess is that one of the rules you're referring to says that the evidence must be from the natural world, in other words, that it be discernable either directly by way of one or more of our five senses, or indirectly through instruments like microscopes and thermometers. Any such evidence would be valid, even if the phenomenon under study was God. Is this the rule you're thinking of?--Percy

Okay, I apologize for my lateness. I only have so much time in the day to spend on the computer (in a week, I should say) and this website is not my largest priority in that matter (sorry to say so). Anyway, I'll try to address an important issue brought up by Lam: I was not using the belief in God to dismiss the idea of technological advancement (which is what you seem to have interpreted out of the statement you quoted from me).Can you please tell me, what IS gravity? Obviously, nobody can say what it is in a natural/physical sense. It is a fact, yes... well, the existence of gravity cannot be argued (if anybody thinks it can, I invite them to jump off the roof of their house and use THAT as their argument against the existence of gravity). Anyway, that is the point, however; what IS gravity? What IS magnetism? Is magnetism made up of a cloud of literally billions of physical particles--much much smaller than electrons or leptons--which interact with one another to either repel or attract larger bodies? If it is not, then what is the explanation for gravity? Literally, nobody as far as I know has been able to say what light IS or what gravity IS or what magnetism IS and, frankly, I don't care (they exist in the natural realm but, for the time being, can only be explained by attempts to bridge the gap between the natural and the supernatural realms).If my statement, Lam, led you to believe that I don't care about technology or scientific knowledge, I am sorry for misleading you.Let me remind you what I said: And let me remind you how you responded to that: I DID NOT say such a thing. I am grateful for many of the advancements in technology and knowledge (otherwise I would not be wearing a watch, I would not have driven my car today, I would not have popped open the can of soda that I am drinking right now, etc.) Let me quote a phrase from my most valued writer:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen..." (Heb. 11:1).All I am saying is that, with the existence of God, there is no reason why people should spend their time on issues not necessary. For instance, this entire website and the purpose thereof are significantly less important to the main issue--the most important thing is not which story of origins is true, but rather, how we are affected by the existence of such a God/supernatural being.Yes, I am a young earth creationist and an advocate for the divine intervention as to the origins of the original ancient Scriptures. Nevertheless, if the Bible were PROVEN scientifically to be fallacious it would not phase my faith whatsoever because my faith is not in the Bible, nor is it in the story of creation; my faith is in God and HIM alone.Let me ask three questions: (for simplicity sake, I'd like a yes or no, and I am not asking for an argument or justification for your answers).1) Do you believe, whatsoever, in the existence (or possibility of an existence) of a God? Yes or no please.2) If you answered to yes to (1), do you think that there is a specific reason and purpose for your existence? (Afterall, if there exists a God, then there most likely exists a reason for YOUR existence beside just random chance). Yes or no, please.3) If you answered yes to (1) and (2), do you think that God cares what you do with your life?Finally (sorry, number 4), if you answered no to (1), could you please explain why? (I'm not asking for evidence of evolution... I'm merely asking for your reason for being and atheist). And if you answered yes to (1) and/or (2) then question four doesnt apply to you.So, with that said, I hope you understand that my argument you read was not directed toward the idea that, if there is a God, then we can ignore technological and scientific research... rather, I was stating that the existence of God should serve as a guideline for us not wasting our lives on trying to understand the less important (notice I did NOT list medicine, engineering, the education system, agriculture, biochemistry, genetics, or--God forbid--politics as areas that we do not need answers to in the presence of God... I only listed explanations for what gravity and magnetism are composed of, and WHY energy decreases within closed systems).So, hope this is a little to chew over... and once again I apologize in advance if I do not get around to returning to this thread any time soon due to my schedule.Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

According to a popular and accurate model used to describe it, it's an illusion caused by straight-line motion through curved space.Just thought I'd chime in with that.

First of all, you have not even BEGUN to explain what gravity is. Saying that it is an illusion is only dismissing the real question of what it IS. Furthermore, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Physics, gravity is the attraction between two bodies of a given mass (in simplest terms). To say that it is an illusion, and then to try and explain what causes it, is a leap of faith. BTW, where did you get that explanation from anyway? Was it from a peer-review? And if yes, what mechanisms were used to determine what gravity is?To this day, what gravity truly IS is a mystery; completely inevitably a mystery. If not, could you please offer the evidence for your claim. Furthermore, could you please explain why our alleged knowledge of gravity is the correct truth about such a field (or light or magnetism, or the neutron force for that matter)?Thus, while an interesting idea, an "illusion caused by straight-line motion through curved space" does not explain what causes the attraction between two bodies (which is the affect of gravity).Thank you for trying, though.sincerely,
ServantP.S. Your arrogance is neither flattering nor necessary.