From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/4/2026 5:59 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 3/01/2026 9:24 am, Ernest Major wrote:   
   >> On 02/01/2026 12:06, MarkE wrote:   
   >>> This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:   
   >>>   
   >>> If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted   
   >>> scientific research over that time, there is a large majority   
   >>> scientific consensus that all postulated naturalistic explanations   
   >>> for each of the following had been excluded or shown be excessively   
   >>> improbable:   
   >>>   
   >>> 2. origin of the universe   
   >>> 3. fine tuning   
   >>> 4. origin of life   
   >>> 5. macroevolution   
   >>>   
   >>> It seems to me the options are:   
   >>>   
   >>> a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations   
   >>> b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations   
   >>> c. Consider supernatural explanations   
   >>> d. Some combination of the above   
   >>>   
   >>> Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?   
   >>   
   >> As I wrote earlier, nobody is stopping you proposing supernatural   
   >> explanations.   
   >>   
   >> If, say, 1000 years from now, no-one has proposed a substantive   
   >> supernatural explanation (implicit in your thought experiment), would   
   >> you consider stopping looking for a gap to stuff your god into, and   
   >> consider that perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that   
   >> there's a natural explanation.   
   >>   
   >   
   > The range of Christian creationist positions (TE, OEC, ID, RTB/PC, YEC)   
   > demonstrate that reconciling a supernatural explanation (i.e.   
   > interpretations of the biblical account of creation) with observations   
   > of the material world is of real importance. How successful this has   
   > been or will be is another topic.   
      
   ID isn't a category of creationism it is a scam term that is used to   
   mislead interpretation of what the creationists are doing and   
   supporting.  Denton and Behe are theistic evolutionists, most of the ID   
   perps are OEC, RTB/PC is just a category of OEC, and some of the ID   
   perps are YEC.  Pagano was an old earth geocentric Biblical creationist   
   IDiot.  I do not recall any flat earth IDiotic creationists, but they   
   likely exist.  They just need to lower themselves to that level of   
   dishonesty.   
      
   >   
   > All the same, whenever I pose this thought experiment here, a common   
   > response is to unconditionally reject consideration of supernatural   
   > explanations, often asserting that science is the only source of knowledge.   
      
   It is always noted that you have no valid reason for proposing the   
   explanation, and science is not asserted to be the only source of   
   knowledge.  Science is just the best means we have of understanding   
   nature.  Your supernatural explanations have never been demonstrated to   
   be any type of explanation for anything that we have determined to exist   
   in nature.  You are running from the fact that god-did-it claims have a   
   100% failure rate for explaining anything in nature.  If this were not   
   true, you would be putting up the successes instead of wallowing in the   
   denial.  The failure rate for your option has been 100%.  Your option   
   cannot be evaluated directly, and what actually exists has to be   
   demonstrated in order to reject your option.  The earth is not flat, we   
   do not live in a young geocentric universe, the order of creation in   
   Genesis 1 is not correct even if you claim that the days are period of   
   time.  Why do you think that the YEC want to remove the Big Bang (#1 of   
   the Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic denial evidence) from public school   
   science standards.  There would not be Biblical creationists in denial   
   of the age of the earth, evolution and topics like the Big Bang if there   
   had not been 100% failure of the supernatural option.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   > IMO, this resistance goes transparently beyond, for example, reasonable   
   > caution against premature god-of-the-gaps appeals. Physicist Brian Cox   
   > gives us a clue I think as to where this is coming from (capitalisation   
   > mine):   
   >   
   > “There’s no evidence that the universe has purpose or intent, and it   
   > doesn’t care about us at all. The laws of physics will continue to   
   > operate whether we exist or not. I don’t find that depressing — I FIND   
   > IT LIBERATING, BECAUSE IT MEANS MEANING ISN’T IMPOSED FROM OUTSIDE. It’s   
   > something we create for ourselves, and with that comes complete   
   > responsibility for what we do."   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)