(treeoflife;48236)
The original storry is totally unrelated. You created a story that has nothing to do with the argument (shoes disappearing), and then implanted our theories (Evolution and Creation) in them where you saw fit. The theories don't talk about an item disappearing, they talk about items coming into existance. In either case, here we are.
I don't know how to put this any clearer. It is an analogy, treeoflife. I'm sure you have seen them before. An analogy does not require that things be identical in structure. When we assess the validity of a scientific hypothesis,
regardless of what it is about, we do it based on certain principles. And for the same reason that you don't use the God of Shoe Stealing to explain your shoes disappearing, one ought not to invoke God as a cosmological explainer.The point that I am making is a
general point about how we assess scientific hypotheses. It
does not matter whether they are about shoes disappearing or about evolution or creation. Hypothesizing encompasses both of those things. Do you have a separate scientific method for every type of problem?Here, I will do a simpler analogy if that helps you understand. Suppose we are trying to figure out what makes babies, and where babies comes from. (This, I assume, is directly analogous enough to the creation of the universe). At first, we don't have a lot of information. So we posit that they come from a stork. After all, as children, we don't
see the actual process of birthing; we just walk into the room and see a newborn baby. The stork hypothesis is perfectly compatible with our observations. Why not accept it?The thing is that it's fallacious to assume the stork hypothesis - and not just because we would know better if we observed the process of birthing. Of course, it would be
immediately obvious that the stork hypothesis was wrong if we observed the birthing process (just as it would be immediately obvious that the God hypothesis was wrong if we could somehow observe a naturalistic origin of the universe). But the stork hypothesis is wrong even when we can't directly observe the process because, while P(E/H) is 100%, P(H/E) is miniscule. We could posit that babies are delivered by flying monkeys, or raccoons, or that hospital rooms have the ability to produce them out of thin air when no one is looking: all of these hypotheses have a large P(E/H) but a low P(H/E).(treeoflife)
Nobody on this site, not I or anyone else I know of, would attribute their shoes disappearing to God.
I know: that's my whole point.(treeoflife)
The Evolutionist does, in fact, have faith in what he or she believes. I believe in the beginning God, and the Evolutionist believes in the beginning, "Not God."
Evolution has nothing to do with belief in God or the origin of the universe. This is a strawman.(treeoflife)
Both require unobservable, mystical acts, that go outside of observable, law driven science in order to arrive at his or her conclusion.
What is unobservable or mystical about evolution? And please, don't mention the origin of the universe or abiogenesis, as it has been stated countless times that these are theories separate from evolution.(treeoflife)
My faith is better than your faith, and that's that.
Please, after a little bit of thought I'm you can figure out why you probably ought not to say things like this if you have any desire for a productive argument. It's flamebait.