Yes it is, you’ve obviously got no idea what point I was making.
But here’s a hint: “Your premise is wrong!” most definitely missed the point.
Perhaps, but why is that relevant?
In fact, how does your sentence even resemble something that could even be mildly conceived as relevant to the point I was making?
Once again. The point is that the scientific method can’t discover the Creator because all the evidence is that there ISN’T one. If there was, then quite likely it could. The problem isn’t the “nature of the scientific method”; the problem is that judging by the evidence you are wrong.
IF the Creator created matter, we can safely infer that the Creator is not composed of matter.
I just can not put it in any more simple terms.
So your “creator” is an immaterial being that exists in a non-physical world where time doesn’t exist?
In what way does she/he/it differ from The Wizard Of Oz?
Again I ask, what do you suppose your “creator” is composed of, if not matter?
What absolute total nonsense.
Please provide for us the “genetic evidence” that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, without in any way beginning with the assumption that evolution is true.
HINT: Ignoring the assumption that evolution is true, highlighting the similarity in our DNA is no more evidence of a common ancestor than it is of common genetic traits.
His point was not lost on me.
I’m sorry for trying to salvage something that resembled a point from otherwise baseless assertions.
You’re right.
Of course I should accept the use of a method which by its very nature and by your own admission, is incapable of detecting an intelligent creator. What was I thinking?
If evolution isn’t true, then we CAN’T have a common ancestor. You are asking him to prove himself right, while using the assumption he’s wrong.
And evolution isn’t an “assumption” anyway; it’s a fact.
Define “sensical,” then.
The material composition of the creator is a separate issue from whether a creator must be inferred to explain the universe.
It doesn’t have to prove anything. YOU are the one making the assertion, and you are doing so largely by argumentum ad ignorantiam arguments – “I don’t understand it, therefore a wizard did it.” No, total explicability does not prove magical creator elves don’t exist, but we don’t HAVE to prove they don’t exist. Non-existence is the null hypothesis-- the default logical assumption. you’re the one who has the burden to prove the assumption is erroneous.
I have no idea, you’re asking me about a type of existence I have never seen or experienced.
But if the creator created matter, then he ain’t composed of that now, is he?
No need to apologize for the OP yet again.
I am asking him to start by not assuming evolution to be either true or false, and then using “genetic evidence” to prove evolution true.
No; you are just ignoring it. In fact . . .
You just did it again. ONCE AGAIN; the point is that the scientific method can’t demonstrate the existence of a Creator because going by the evidence THERE IS NO CREATOR. The fact that the scientific method is good at discovering the truth is a feature, not a bug.
If you’re admitting your assumption is unjustified, then you’re conceding your entire OP.
I have to leave the computer now, I hope to resume this later. Thanks to everyone for the discussion.
The nature of genetics mandates that evolution MUST exist barring something stopping it. Once you have heritability, variation, and differing replication rates for different genetic combinations, you get evolution. You might as well try to pretend gravity doesn’t exist.
You’re the one making all kinds of suppositions about your “creator’s” abilities and general makeup. So let’s not drop this major point of your OP, o.k.?
If she/he/it isn’t made up of matter, what else could she/he/it possibly consist of?
What, besides matter, is there?