Brian2
Veteran Member
Doesn't follow.
As per your own acknowledgement, it IS possible to predict things and be right about it without being a god.
So predicting something and being correct about it wouldn't show "it is from god", since it could just as well be from a human being correct.
It would depend on what is being predicted.
How many times by now have you been told that the "dna is a language" and the "dna is a code" stuff are metaphors? DNA is just a molecule engaged in a giant chain reaction.
A metaphorical comparison is made with a coding language for ease of understanding and explaining. But it is just a molecule. It's not a "code". The genesequences don't actually consist of letters like CTAG. Those are just OUR labels we place on the molecules.
Nevertheless the label "code" is there for a reason, because that is what it looks like, and it does store and use information. Maybe our brains don't store knowledge, it is just chemical reactions in the brain and our "languages" are just noises which activate response sensors in someone else's brain and cause chemical reactions which lead to more noises.
More misrepresentation / intellectual dishonesty.
Nobody is saying it happened "by chance".
Evolution includes randomness (mainly in terms of input), but the evolutionary process IS NOT RANDOM.
The bottom line is that every aspect of the evolutionary process (mutation, selection, drift, etc) can be observed in reality. It includes no processes or aspects that can't be demonstrated to occur.
As such , it is sufficient as an explanation, with no need for any addition unverifiable aspects.
Your designer? Your designer is nothing BUT unverifiable aspects. Literally NONE of it can be validated in reality, verified, what-have-you.
It's just a bare claim rooted in logical fallacies like false dichotomies, ignorance, incredulity, etc.
So on the one hand we have a religious claim which has NO evidence at all.
On the other hand we have a scientific theory that accounts for ALL evidence.
Geee... let me think which one I'll pick...
It is blindness to say that scientific theory accounts for all evidence. It eliminates evidence that it cannot cope with and atheists end up saying that evidence is not real evidence.
But of course you want to make the false dichotomy of science verses religion and say that I do not believe science.
The evolutionary process is not random, being chemistry and physics, and the conclusions are a result of the methodological naturalism presumption put beside Occam's Razor and educated guesses about what might have happened, while ignoring evidence for a creator.
But of course where chemistry and physics is going to end up seems pretty random. That life came about at all was a result of millions of random flukes.
I would say that once started it could be predicted where evolution was going to end up, given the right environment and environmental twists.
So is cutting out a creator the best thing to do when humans are wondering the big questions?
Sure science has to do that because science cannot use evidence for God in science and has the naturalistic methodology, but we humans should be able to see when and if science might be leading us up a wrong path because of those thing. I can see it anyway even if you can't, but I don't ignore the evidence for a God and what He has told us about all of this.