What exactly makes a scientific god did it answer?
Example: The Big Bang theory. There are several questions that can be asked about this theory that are not answerable in a way that would be considered a flow chart, like a flowing theory where what exists supports what is claimed. Instead, the questions actually show how impossible such a theory actually is. What are these question?
The questions that invoke god did it like answers:
1) Where did the matter come from for the big bang?
2) Where did the energy come from if energy cannot be created or destroyed?
3) How do you break all the laws of physics to compress all matter of the universe into a dot?
The god did it like answers for the questions above:
1) A rip in the fabric of space and time.
2) Because energy always existed.
3) There were no laws when the dot existed.
Answer #1 invokes an unobserved, untestable event. One of such un-comprehensible magnitude, that it becomes un-questionable by default. Because how do you question a rip in the fabric of space and time? How would you prove or disprove it?
Answer #2 is just a cop out answer that cannot be proven or disproven.
Answer #3 goes a little further into what a god did it answer is all about. This answer that no laws existed is the perfect example of how science will bend laws to make a theory work. What makes it a god like answer is this: If a evolutionist ask me (a creationist) a question I could not answer, and I reply: God did it. How would you question a being that His very existence defies all natural laws? Laws He can work around because of His power. Taking away the laws that exist is invoking a situation where anything can happen naturally, and god like (invoking god like powers). Because if laws don't exist, then anything I say can exist, and anything I claim can happen. Is that scientific? No, because science is about explaining things that happen naturally, without invoking the supernatural which is deemed as intellectually cheating.
So god did it type answers are basically:
1) One that cannot be proven or disproven (just like God). 2) One that invokes a situation where god like powers can take place naturally (powers like God). 3) One that basically cannot be questioned because it is uncomprehendable (just like God is).
Or in more scientific terms, the answer is scientifically unfalsifiable. Which when added to a theory makes the theory unfalsifiable as well. Even Talkorigins, a well known evolutionist site that is against God and creation agrees with #1.
Q 4. First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
So you see, if your answer for a theory invokes a god did it type answer that cannot be proven or disproven. Then you just proved evolution as a religion by default. To keep this from happening, Scientists and Darwinists should stay away from answers that invoke the three things listed above.
When a theory is in question. look for an alternative:
For evolution to be a religion, you also have to have answers to explain away intelligence, or answers to explain away the unexplainable. Now because the abiogenesis theory has had several holes shot into it. And Miller did not help any with his experiment. This was because cheats were used, and unreal world conditions as well. This is why no other scientist has repeated what Miller did. To do so is to admit to what he did to get his results. Evolutionists have thought up a way around this. This is even one that Dawkins believes in. So take notice.
Directed panspermia theory: This is a belief that life was planted here from another planet. Through seeding from a rock from another planet, or intelligent evolved life that passed by and left life here to form and evolve. What makes this a religious type theory is:
1) Life has not been found on any other planet. 2) So there is really no evidence to support this claim. 3) So it takes total faith to even believe this. 4) It happens to include and evolved intelligent being that according to the belief, has the ability to make life on lifeless planets (god like).
But, the evolutionists want to prove their intelligent deity type belief by going to another planet (Mars) to meet any living thing they can find or claim to find. They have already spent 100s of millions of dollars making up ideas on what kind of life they should be able to find. Animations to make the public believe in their cause so that no one will reject or question their quest when they ask for money (tithes and offerings) from governments around the world, and people in the private sectors who have such money to give.
And if they find their life there, they will claim absolute proof that their deity life that exists on Mars disproves all religious deities on earth. And in effect their belief will become the number one belief through faith. Why would it be faith? One group has total control over the evidence, one group has total control over the information that comes from this evidence. And because no one else will be able to go to Mars to check it out. It becomes faith based because everyone else here on earth has to take a group of Astronauts word for it for what they found. So like a Christian God that cannot be produced at will, the planet Mars life god will become religion that only a few men supposedly saw, and wrote a book or paper about. Just like the Christian religion has a Bible, the Astronauts will write a book that will be considered the Bible of Mars origin of life.
Evolving in concert (together) theory: This is where a creationist will point out that certain organs, or systems, cannot work or even exist unless a dependant organ or system is already in place and functioning. Their answer will be that they evolved together. No two organs or systems, in the human body, have the same exact complexity. And therefore would not take the same number of mutations. Different mutations equal different lengths of time required to evolve. Example question: Which came first: The eye, or the vision center of the brain? For you cannot see if both do not exist at the same time, and are fully evolved.
Indefinite time period theory: This is where time itself becomes the answer. Example: Why cannot the process for millions of years of evolution be shown, tested, and retested to confirm? It takes to much time. And because we cannot comprehend a million years, this answer becomes an unfalsifiable theory. Which makes it religious because a unfalsifiable theory is not even a theory. How do you falsify millions of years? You cannot falsify what you cannot comprehend. And this works very well for the evolutionists. Example: "Given enough time anything can happen". That is the evolutionist motto. If you don't believe me, take a look at the video below. Note: Video below is not a promotion of Kent Hovind. It just happens to have an example of a evolutionist using the time excuse at the very beginning of the video. So if you don't want to watch Hovind, just click if off after the first guy speaks.
No probability needed theory: This is where evolutionists no longer want to deal with issues concerning the odds against their claims. They will use the excuse that numbers can be fudged. Well using that logic it can also be said that evidence can be fudged. And by the way, that has already happened on more than one occasion concerning evolution. So using that logic, maybe we should also disregard the supposed evidence too? Example:
The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. In other words 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros. i.e. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000
If you would have brought this up during a debate, you would be laughed at because odds prove evolution wrong. So odds are no longer part of the theory and they will make an excuse for this.
Total control over information concerning the evidence: this is when the evidence can only be confirmed by a said person who makes the claim. And all information concerning said evidence is controlled by the group said person belongs to. This type of control makes everyone else have to accept another person's word. Example: The Oort cloud theory. No one has seen it. But some how they already know how it functions, and that it exists. But yet no one outside of the tight nit group of those making the claim, can confirm the claim. So the theory goes unchallenged, therefore becomes unfalsifiable. And becomes religious because it has to be taken by faith.
Like the Bible. How many people wrote it? Are we not taking their word for what happened? Is that not called faith in what a person says or claims? So by faith people take what scientist claim and accept it even though it can never be tested. Like the millions of year of claimed evolution. Do evolutionists have a Bible? Yes, it's called the Origin of Species. And like the Bible that Christians take personally, attack the credibility of this Darwinian Bible and see what happens.
Vestigial organ theory: This is when there are no explanations for organs that exist but seem have no function. Natural selection should weed such things out, but it does not. It was claimed for a long time that the human appendix had no function. It was later discovered that it was a part of our immune system. So just because there is no answer for certain current questions does not mean they always need to have one. So this proves that this theory was only thought up to cover for the things that are unanswerable about the evolution theory.
If you would like to comment or debate the subject discussed here, you can go to this forum where the discussion is already taking place: Evolution Fairytale forum.
