mazaje:

The only way to know that the god did it hypothesis is inferior to scientific explanations is when you have two different proponents of the god hypothesis(e.g a Christian and a Moslem) trying to show that their own god hypothesis is the true one,

beneli:

My honest concern is that some people still decide to tenaciously believe that there can be no God. One would have thought that the most enlightened thing to do in the light of all these uncertainties and with the unfolding knowledge available to man, is for the so called 'atheists' to agree that they don't know if there is a God or not and to do the 'reasonable' thing of converting to the less dogmatic agnosticism. I would, if i hadn't done that journey already and come full circle right back to where i started as a Deist!

“Life could never have evolved by chance on planet earth." -Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick (co-discoverer of one of the most important discoveries of 20th century biology

viaro:

This is not even close to reasoning scientifically or philosophically. It is just about the same thing to say that "the only way" to know that atheistic hypothesis is empty is because atheists hold very different arguements about what atheism actually is. To make for a compromise, the empty talk about 'weak' and 'strong' atheism comes into play to pat atheists on the back.

Another example would be the statement that "the only way" to know that the evolution is inferior as a 'scientific explanation' for the origin of life is when we see that even evolutionists have two different propositions of their hypothesis - what we might call the 'Dawkins vs Gould' polarisations. Just because these two evolutionists argue diametrically opposed views about several things in evolution should not be grounds to make simplistic statements about "the only way" to know this and that as inferior.

The God-hypothesis is NOT inferior to any so-called 'science' of LIFE origins. The philosophical paradigms driving origins research have not even come close to controverting the plain fact that naturalism does not have ANY answer to the ORGIN of LIFE. The best anyone could argue is mere conjecture/speculation - which is nothing more than an inferior 'science' (if it could even pass for 'science' at all).

mazaje:

I believe that all the gods of man made religion are man made, and there are so many evidence to show that men created all the gods they worship and espouse. No god can be shown to exist outside human cultural traditions, mythologies and stories. Lets take the christian religion, The christian hypothesis does not just say that god created the universe and everything and stops there, It goes further and claims that this god has certain attributes, these attributes are incompatible and make it impossible for this said god to exist. . . . .  This god is also said to have attributes or does things that can be objectively observed. But the problem is that non of these attributes have ever been objectively observed at all. Personally I can accept the deist position but that claim it self has a lot of problems and is not self evident. . . . . . . . The deist assert that god created the universe, They refuse to tell us the nature of this god, why he created and his purpose of creating the universe. In fact they refuse to tell us how these god can be seen, known or encountered, They just make a non evidential claim and the that's it. . . . . . . .

And why should we believe this baseless claim? His evidence that life could never evolve by chance is what?.

His evidence that life was created by a god to show that it can never evolve by chance is?. . . . . .  . We should accept this blanket statement because he said so?

mazaje:

When atheist are debating atheism between themselves non of them tries to use the supernatural argument to buttress his/her position they just make their case and move on, What about conflicting god hypothesis?.

Knowing very well that their god hypothesis explains nothing they try to use natural scientific explanations sometimes to discredit those on the opposing view side, Why? because they KNOW very well that the god hypothesis CAN NOT stand on its own and is not self evident.

Evolutionist do not leave the realm of scientific naturalism and try to use supernatural explanations to explain the validity of there assertions when debating each other do they?

The FACT that the various proponents of the god hypothesis sometimes drop their god explanations and use natural scientific explanations when discrediting each others assertion is very telling. .

And when did naturalism ever claim that it has the answer to the origin of life?.

viaro:

I have no problem with your 'belief'; it could be placed anywhere in the larger context of atheistic assumptions in the writings of several atheist authors and still be found to be quite a vacillating position between 'weak' and 'strong' atheism.

Your evidence that life could have evolved by chance is WHAT?

No, but I would like to see your own evidence that life could have evolved by chance completely on its own. This does not make any appeal to the God-hypothesis, but please show me the scientific evidence you have for the -life-evolved-by-chance hypothesis.

mazaje:



I didn't even make any claim about life evolving by chance or not evolving by chance. You are assuming what I did not even say,

Did I say that life can evolve by chance. Some guy made a blanket statement that life can not evolve on this planet, Do you agree with that?

If you do then you can consult him and the two of you should provide us with evidence to show why life can not evolve by chance on this planet and can only come about by a god supposedly Yahweh. . . . .

Your evidence that I said life can evolve by chance is?

And why should we believe this baseless claim? His evidence that life could never evolve by chance is what?.

I did not make any blanket claim or statement about the the evolution of life. . .He did, he should then go ahead and provide evidence to show that to us.

viaro:

This is just plain crass!  WHY do atheist have to try to discredit theism in their attempt to find a meaning for ATHEISM? You, mazaje, are very funny!  This kind of argument is very frivolous and embarrassing to the rational atheist. If such an atheist cannot find meaning for his atheism until he makes an appeal to theism, he is both at a lose to himself and a non-starter presupposition.

Oh puhleease!  You have started this empty drivel again. If naturalism does not have any explanations to the ORIGIN of LIFE, what are you arguing here?

mazaje:

You my friend are a very funny person, I said that theist sometimes use the natural scientific explanation to discredit the explanations of those on the opposing side because the god hypothesis is not self evident and you come up with this rejoinder? Are you confused?

According to wikipedia Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. My atheism is the rejection of theism and also the position that deities do not exist how is that not a rational atheistic position?

Naturalism tries to provide natural explanations for the origin of life NOT answers to the origin of life.

I notice that you have changed you assertion from answers to the origin of life to explanations about the origin of life.

The point is naturalism has never claimed that it has the answers to the origin of life question, it only tries to explain the origin of life.

You said that "The philosophical paradigms driving origins research have not even come close to controverting the plain fact that naturalism does not have ANY answer to the ORGIN of LIFE." and I asked you to tell me when naturalism claims it has the answers to the origin of life?

viaro:

Sorry about the assumption. Even so, I was not trying to assume anything into your posts (I had a hunch that when the atheist is closely examined, he is more likely to post disclaimers and beat a retreat!)  .

Consequently, in all the attempts that have been made in scientific progress, scientists are leaning towards the position that naturalism is inadequate to provide  explanations or any 'evidence' for the origin of life. This does not mean that they are necessarily delving into the metaphysical (although metaphysics is also part of the systemics approach); and we understand why - because naturalism does not make grand statements about what is beyond its explanatory philosophies.

I posed that question from this part of your previous response:[list][/list]. . because it suggests to me that you know far more than you can assert by claiming that someone else's statement is 'baseless'. That being so, it would be nice to see the basis of your own ideas that inform your assertions - otherwise what you are at pains to argue is as baseless as anyone could imagine.

Well, I am not in a position to defend his original thesis; but I reckon that your hasty assertion was ill-informed.

mazaje:

, The atheist does not post a disclaimer and beats a retreat, Its you who always assumes wrongly and tries to force the atheist to accept things as defined or contextualized by you .

I will like to see credible sources from authoritative scientific bodies(like the NAS) that declare that scientific naturalism is inadequate to provide explanations for the origin of life. I agree that scientific naturalism might not be able to provide evidence but explanations? I will like to see such sources that make that declaration

I said it is a baseless claim because he did not provide any objective basis why he made that blanket statement. . .On what objective basis did he come to the conclusion and authoritative assert that life could not evolve and could only come about through the magical wonder of a deity?

I my assertion was not ill-informed IMO. . .I say this because he did not provide give an objective basis for declaring that life could never evolve on this planet. . . .I am not saying that life evolved, Why should he make that forceful and blanket statement without providing any objective basis for his assertion

mazaje:

Science tries its best to offer natural explanations for most of the phenomena and events we see around us, does science have limitations, Yes it does and science even acknowledges that it has its own limitations, despite its many limitations science still offer the best explanations for most of the things that we see around. Take any event or occurrence which explanation will you prefer? The scientific one or the so called supernatural one? Having no explanation for an event means nothing more than we don't know. We don't know yet means we don't know It is ignorant to conclude or claim that god did it.If you say that god did it then be sure to provide empirical and scientific methods of showing that it was your own particular god that did it and not other gods that have also claimed to have done it. God did it has never explained anything at all. Even those the subscribe to the god hypothesis very much prefer natural explanations because it is more reasonable and makes much more sense than the god did it hypothesis that makes no sense at all. I say this because you will realize that the god did it hypothesis is only a claim that offers no explanation, and is unverifiable at all.

The only way to know that the god did it hypothesis is inferior to scientific explanations is when you have two different proponents of the god hypothesis(e.g a Christian and a Moslem) trying to show that their own god hypothesis is the true one, They sometimes try to use science and the scientific explanation to show that the assertions of their opponent is invalid because it does not agree with science and there by declare it invalid, If a Muslim claims divine healing from say cancer and tells the Christian that it was allah that healed him the Christian will try to look for natural and scientific explanations to show how the cancer was healed and show the Moslem that it was not allah that really healed him. If the Christian points to the creation accounts in the bible, The moslem will point to all the scientific inconsistencies that are found in the creation account to show to the christian that Yahweh did not really create the earth and the universe because that creation account does not agree with the scientific explanations.

Christians use the scientific process and knowledge to show moslems for example that the method of conception explained in the koran is false because it does not agree with modern scientific explanations. The Christian accepts the christian hypothesis and all its ridiculous claims but tries to use science sometimes to discredit his opponents who also subscribe to a different god hypothesis. The problem is that things are not done that way.

The god hypothesis explains NOTHING at all, because it explanations are not self evident, The god hypothesis only offers claims and counter claims but it explains nothing to any body apart from those that subscribe to the particular version of the god hypothesis they subscribe to. We don't know means we don't know, saying that god did it and offering no explanation with regards to how he did it is just a baseless claim. If you claims that god created the universe then you should be able to explain how and why god created the asteroids and why and how he created planets like Jupiter and Saturn. Saying the god spoke them into existence makes it highly speculative at best, and more likely, just a convenient fiction.

viaro:

Please let me know what you intend to make between 'explanations' and 'evidence' and then I shall oblige you some sources for what I have been saying.

In my view, I don't see it as baseless because I have not seen any sources where life is said to have evolved by chance with any shred of evidence. If he was reasoning philosophically, would it be baseless as well? If your answer is yes, by what philosophy? But even so, I have not argued for the God-hypothesis other than saying that it is 'not inferior' to any so-called 'science' of LIFE origins. If you do have any shred of 'evidence' for how life must have evolved by chance, would you like to share?

mazaje:

Pls just go ahead and provide your credible sources(Like the NAS) that declare that naturalism is in adequate to provide explanation as to the origin of life. . . . .

mazaje:

Naturalism tries to provide natural explanations for the origin of life _{NOT answers to the origin of life}

My friend you are dancing around. . . .You should have had enough boogey at the club, church or where ever over the new year day celebration. .

In my view I have NOT seen any objective source that says life can not evolve by chance and can only come about by the magical interference of a deity. I have not seen such a paper. . . .He is a biologist(scientist) so I believe he was not arguing philosophically but scientifically. His scientific basis for saying that life could never have evolved on this planet by chance but can only come about by the magical interference of a deity is what?

mazaje:

Naturalism tries to provide natural explanations for the origin of life _{NOT answers to the origin of life}

noetic16:

The "God did it" hypothesis has provided empherical and common sensical evidences which establish that God indeed did the things He did.

noetic16:


1. This is largely FALSE sir.
The "God did it" hypothesis has provided empherical and common sensical evidences which establish that God indeed did the things He did. You are mixing up your ability to accept these evidences with the availability of these evidences. That u consider this evidences and explanations unacceptable does nt imply that these evidences lack integrity or cannot stand the test of intellectual or scientific scrutiny.

2. You have largely admitted the limitations and ignorance associated with science. And u have also attempted to excuse this ignorance on the premise that it offers the best explanation on issues. . . No I strongly disagree.
Based on the current subject it is inconceivable to suggest that life started from inorganic substances. . .this scientific explanation is not plausible.
whats the supernatural explanation?. . .this explanation makes the case of a Living being giving life to other beings to exist. This supernatural explanation adds up with all known scientific and biology-related knowledge we have today. only a living organism can bring forth another living organism. This is my dear is a pathetic exposure of the limits of science.

what really is science? if we are going by the lay man definition of science, then both the muslims and xtians are allowed to use scientific notion to justify their inherent claims.  
1 believe that it is only pertinent that everyone's claim is analysed and scrutinised to come to an acceptable plausible conclusion. on several ocassions on this forum the biblical account of creation has been brought under the knife and it has stood the test of time. how then do u excuse this on the premise of an islamic account of creation?. . the koran's allah does not even know how many days it took him to create the earth?

viaro:

Howdy, noetic16. I am not sure about this:

'Empirical' and 'evidence' - those are very heavy words to throw around. Could you please show such empirical evidence establishing what you asserted?

viaro:

Oh dear. .  oh dear. .  oh dear me!  I sorta like you this funny chap! I was only trying to bring us to level ground so that neither you nor I run the risk of criss-crossing some 'contextualizations' to diametric tunnels. That was just simply why I asked you to let me know what you intend to make between 'explanations' and 'evidence'.

That is the one point that I would like to see - how NATURALISM provides explanations for the ORIGIN OF LIFE. Please set forth your hypotheses, theories, models, laws, etc. for the naturalistic explanations of the ORIGIN of Life, thank you.

Let's be objective now, if you may. True, he is a scientist - and even if we ignore the philosophical basis of his statement, let's move over to the materialist/naturalist who argues to the contrary. You also made an assertion:. .  and I await your own evidence for that. Please note carefully, we are talking here about the ORIGIN of Life.

noetic16:

empirical evidence that "God did it"?. . . . . .

This is pretty obvious and I have repeatedly stated this on this forum. . . , . just cant lay my hands on the links now, . .but the thread is titled NOETIC EXPLAINS WHY GENESIS IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN SCIENCE. . . .the thread was initiated by krayola.

1. . . . . based on biblical accounts of the "God did it" case we know from the assertions of God that He commanded that man be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. simply put He asked them to reproduce after their own kind. The only explanation for the continuos increase and sustanance of the worlds population has been reproduction. . .which u and I are products of. . .this is experimentable and observable and as such empirical and serves as an evidence. Reproduction as a means of replenishing is an exclusive preserve of the creation argument.
The claim that other species (including man) are products of inorganic/non-living substances as postulated in theories is false and not empirical.

noetic16:

empirical evidence that "God did it"?. . . . . .

This is pretty obvious and I have repeatedly stated this on this forum. . . , . just cant lay my hands on the links now, . .but the thread is titled NOETIC EXPLAINS WHY GENESIS IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN SCIENCE. . . .the thread was initiated by krayola.

1. . . . . based on biblical accounts of the "God did it" case we know from the assertions of God that He commanded that man be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. simply put He asked them to reproduce after their own kind. The only explanation for the continuos increase and sustanance of the worlds population has been reproduction. . .which u and I are products of. . .this is experimentable and observable and as such empirical and serves as an evidence. Reproduction as a means of replenishing is an exclusive preserve of the creation argument.

The claim that other species (including man) are products of inorganic/non-living substances as postulated in theories is false and not empirical.

mazaje:

Noetic happy new year. . . .  

Your empirical and scientific evidence that says that Yahweh magically spoke(supposedly in the hebrew langauage) the birds into existence is WHAT?

The scientific explanation is not plausible according to whom? If it is not plausible then why do scientist agree with its plausibility? Your scientific and empirical evidence to show that a living being that is allegedly uncreated gave life to plants and animals is what? What is the supernatural explanation for the existence of plants and animals? How did your god create a toad?. . . .How did he create a baobab tree?

, Noetic my man when has the biblical claim stood the test of time when compared to scientific claims? The biblical creation stories would have us accept that the earth existed (complete with liquid water and plants) before the sun existed, How does that agree with the scientific process of solar and planetary formation? According to the creation accounts in genesis the the moon was created at the same time with the sun and also produces it's light, how does this claim agree with the scientific explanation about the solar and lunar formation? It also claims that it took 6 days to create our planet but a moment on the 4th day to create the rest of the universe (all the uncountable stars, nebulae, galaxies, etc); that humans have existed on this planet for most of its existence. How does this agree with the current scientific understanding and explanation of the universe and the earth? Why and how did the bible god create the other planets? Why and how did he create the asteroids? Did he speak them into existence too? . The bible says that the moon and stars were created solely to provide light unto the earth and for seasons. . . . .How does this claim agree with scientific explanations? Are the stars really created solely for the purpose of providing light here on earth?. . . . .Was the moon solely created to rule over the night as claimed in the bible? How does a rock rule over anything? What about the scientific explanation of the Earth's ocean tides which come about as a result of the moon's gravitational pull on the earth? How does that agree with the claim that the moon was created to rule over the night?

mazaje:

Why baby? I just want to see the credible sources(Like the NAS) that declare that naturalism is in adequate to provide explanations or evidence as to the origin of life as you said. . . . .I am not interested in any debates about what the dichotomy between explanation and evidence is. . .I just want to see the sources. . . .Pls don't consider this proposal as part of the debate but as me asking you to provide something for me.

The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet in the natural sense. Scientist try or propose various hypothesis using natural explanations. There have been a variety of experiments that try to tell us some possible roads,(Like Miller–Urey experiment). These are the way naturalism tries to explain the origin of life. Are the explanations acceptable or convincing enough? To some they are and to some they are not but they are explanations never non less.

You are trying to run way here. . . . .Where did I make any argument to the contrary? I did not even say that life evolved or did not evolve by chance. I only challenged his claims based on the fact that he did not provide any objective basis for declaring that life can never evolve but had to come about only by the magical interference of a deity.

mazaje:

Naturalism tries to provide natural explanations for the origin of life _{NOT answers to the origin of life}

viaro:

Did a search and found 'Noetic2 Explains Why Genesis Is More Credible Than Science'. I'll take some time to read through in coming days.

I'm afraid that's not an empirical evidence in the least. I won't go into that presently, but maybe we shall have ocassion to think carefully through and see that an assertion of such does not actually establish empirical foundations for evidence of a scientific nature. One point we should note is that within an ordered and orderly world, there are anomalies; and if you had taken that into account, you might not so much be given to conclusions as the above for what is 'empirical evidence' for your case.

It all depends on how the hypothesis is set forth, afterall man was created from non-living matter (from the dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7).

noetic16:

I'm afraid that's not an empirical evidence in the least. I won't go into that presently, but maybe we shall have ocassion to think carefully through and see that an assertion of such does not actually establish empirical foundations for evidence of a scientific nature. One point we should note is that within an ordered and orderly world, there are anomalies; and if you had taken that into account, you might not so much be given to conclusions as the above for what is 'empirical evidence' for your case.

1. says who? you? and your reason is?

. .I hope u dont come up with a world view that has no basis. . . .I would be too disappointed.

2. I refuse to take into account your presupposition of an anomaly in the context of this assertion cos there is no basis for such.

The same man was not a LIVING soul until he received the breadth of LIFE (genesis 2:7)

noetic16:

would I be wrong to say that the above is pathetic? and where is your evidence that suggests that a bird evolved by chance?

when did scientists become infallible? in your previous post u admitted the ignorance and limitations associated with science?  did scientist not previously state that the earth was flat? what exactly do u understand by science, if i may ask?
what is your explanation for the existence of plants and animals?. . . . .did they descend by chance from planet jupiter?

1. The mere fact that the entire earth surface is dominated by 70% water is enough hypothesis to understand that the earth as described in genesis was contained with water until the creation began.

2. there is no where in the biblical accounts where plants are said to precede the sun (from human manifested point of view). I take it that u cannot find a comprehensive understanding of the accounts in the first two chapters of genesis to gasp the entire concept of creation.

3. how does the creation of the moon and sun on the same day contradict the scientific explanation for the solar and lunar formation?

4. would it not be ridiculous on your part to attempt to scrutinise the ability of the creator to create the components of the universe on the fourth day? at a point in time called BEGINING . .  .the same creator made the heaven and earth. . . ,   .how do we decipher the time he created precious stones including gold and diamond, oil and gas? Since we cannot give these works a time-scale. . .would be meaningful to denounce the fact that they were created?
in what quantity do u measure the task of creating the galaxies as more cumbersome than that of other creations? in what capacity do u make this claim?

5. where in the bible did u read that the stars were created to give light?
what is stopping u from making analyses to support your assertions?

and what scientific explanation prevents the moon from ruling by night?

happy new year mazaje.

beneli:

I have been trying to look up on the possible evidence people would have for believing that life can emerge from dust.


The Miller-Urey experiment, which Mazaje mentioned above, is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. It turns out that this study has done much more to show that abiogenesis is not possible on Earth (1) than what the believers of abiogenesis claim. Hence the search for alternative sites for the origin of life outside of earth.

There is however evidence against living organisms randomly evolving out of dust, whether it is stardust or earthbound dust mixed with water to form an 'organic' soup. This evidence can be found in one of the tools of the scientific process itself-the probability of such an event happening.

In the days when it was thought that the universe has always been there, the idea of abiogenesis could be defended by the fact that dust had literarily all the time in the world to go through an infinity of random relationships, of which one would spark off the process of complex life evolving. Unfortunately, we did not have all the ‘time’ in the world for this to happen.

We now believe that the universe is time-limited and as such even Richard Dawkins, one of the atheist’s messiahs, admits that "the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard."(2)

Let’s look at this probability thing a little closer. How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? The French Mathematician Émile Borel has estimated 10 (raised to the power minus 50); and William Dembski , a research professor in philosophy and mathematician has calculated a lower limit of 10 (raised to the power minus 150), based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe (3).

The probability of abiogenesis is far, far less! Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10 (to the power minus 313) to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins (4). Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Sir Fred Hoyle-English astronomer, known for his contributions in stellar nucleosynthesis, estimated a probability of ~10(raised to the power minus 40,000) to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial! (5).


The summary is that abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible!

Sources:
1.http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
2.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3655792/I-dont-believe-in-Richard-Dawkins.html
3.William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 5, 209, 210.
4.Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in Mathematical Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. Paul S. Moorhead (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute, 1967), 109-10.
5.Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 24.

viaro:

1. says who? you? and your reason is?

Actually, my reason is derived from your own statements:

       1.  based on biblical accounts of the "God did it" case we know from
        the assertions of God that He commanded that man be fruitful and
        multiply and replenish the earth.

        2.  simply put He asked them to reproduce after their own kind.

Statements based merely on 'assertions' are not 'empirical' of a scientific nature. If that is the way to argue veracity for empirical evidence, then every religion in the world would have a 100% equal validity for whatever assertions they make - including the Hindu writs that say that 'cows are God', and you would have no justification whatsoever to falsify their assertions and claim that yours is 'correctly' more empirical and evidence-based.

No, I'm not trying to bring up a baseless worldview. I believe that as Christians, we should be very objective and avoid mixing things up.

What if you are shown numerous cases of anomalies within our orderly world and experiences? What would you do or say? How would you begin to explain such anomalies away in the face of incontrovertible evidence?

It still does not negate the very fact that man was created from non-living matter according to Genesis 2:7.

mazaje:

Same old noetic and his antics. . . .Here is what you said. . ."The "God did it" hypothesis has provided empherical and common sensical evidences which establish that God indeed did the things He did.". . . So your empirical evidence that establish that birds were allegedly spoken into existence is WHAT?. . . .I did not make any claim weather birds came into existence by chance, You were the one that says that you have empirical evidence that establishes the claim that Yahweh created the birds by magically uttering Hebrew words. . .Where is that empirical evidence?

I don't know how plants and animals came about, You claim you do and I will like to see your empirical evidence that shows that plants were magically brought into existence with Hebrew words. . . .

The genesis hypothesis claims that there was water and plants on earth BEFORE the sun and the other stars were magically created on the 4th day of creation according to the hypothesis. . . .How does this hypothesis agree with the scientific position with regards to solar and planetary formation?

Are you redefining the genesis hypothesis or are you trying to throw the hypothesis under the bus by saying it does not say what it says? According to the hypothesis there was soil on the surface of the earth(The earth was created before the sun) and the plants were created on the 3rd day of the 6 days of creation and the sun and stars were not created until the 4th day of creation, That is what the hypothesis says and that is what I will go by not your redefinition of what it says. . . .

A little study on the scientific explanation for solar and lunar formation will show you. . . .According to the scientific explanation the sun came first then the planets and after that the moon. . . .How do you reconcile that with the genesis hypothesis that says the earth came first and that the moon and sun were created on the same day?. . . .

The oil and gas all have natural explanations that does not require any input from any deity at all. . . . .Of course the sun, moon, planets and stars were created because we see them and we know what they are, we even have names for them that is not the issue, Do you know how the asteroids came about? If you do can you tell me? Did you god created the planets? How did he do it? Did he magically speak them into exsietence in Hebrew too?. . . .Saying that god did it explains NOTHING at all. . . .A better example lets assume that nobody really understands gravity or can provide substantial evidence for it. If I tell you that it exists because some invisible vacuum demons hidden in the Earth that cannot be experienced or seen by mere mortals put it there, What will you say? The fact that you cannot disprove that hypothesis, nor replace it with a better one, doesn't make it right at all. It makes it highly speculative at best, and more likely, just a convenient fiction. This my friend is the same with the God did it hypothesis. . . .It explains nothing beside the fact that it is only the default position of I don't know by the proponent of the god hypothesis as my man toneyb has said on another thread. . . .

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also

How exactly does the moon rule anything by night?. . . .

Same to you. . . .