I seem to remember you writing on another er occasion that words are essentially metaphoric in nature. Or perhaps function that way?
Also languages seem to evolve over time. In the case of English that change is pretty feral with dialects diverging all the time, though the internet may yet change that. But I understand the French have organizations to oversee what change to allow. I think this all contributes to why word meanings can’t be fixed or objective.
It was probably that human cognitive processes of meaning-making depend on metaphor at a very basic, pre-language level, so some cognitive linguists argue that all meaning in human language depends on metaphor. They debate the existence of “literal meaning” beyond maybe propositions that are fundamentally mathematical. But some of them even argue that math is a human construct not an independant reality, and since proofs are dependant on a human language, they inherently draw on the metaphorical conceptualizations of human cognition.
That was it. Makes sense to me.
Because it is trying to identify the exact process.
It would be the same as refusing to accept that sunlight causes skin tone change. That process is basically invisible. You only identify it after the event, not as it happens. You cannot see it happen. You can only see the result. Is leaf browning due to lack of water or sun burn? You can’t see either.
Does water rise through plants through, Osmosis, only? Why look for anything else if osmosis works? (because there is a limit to how for Osmosis will raise water) It works. So it must do it. That is the mentality of ToE. So why do scientists get angry when people claim ToE is incomplete?
Pride! Indignation! Insulted! Work ethics!
They cannot see God working! How can they produce a definitive answer without a vital component?
Only if that component isn’t there! IF IT IS, THEN THEY ARE WRONG! (sorry and all that)
Richard
Edit.
capillary action is also needed to raise water up a plant, as is transpiration, each on its own would be insufficient.
Only if that component is actually required (which you have not and cannot show until you come up with a divineometer).
Rubbish.
Just because you cannot see it does not mean that you can ignore it until or unless you can!
A divinometer is a strawman.
It doesn’t matter whether you see the car or not, if it runs you over you are dead.
Viruses and bacteria still killed people before they could identify them. Knowing changes nothing. (other than offering an opportunity to change or affect it) ignorance changes nothing. (Claiming it is a demon will not make it so, even if it seems to work or agrees with what you can see or know)
Richard
Edit.
The way you tell that ToE is wrong is that it doesn’t work. But if anyone dares say so they offend scientists!
Many have already told this but maybe I tell it again: the claim in the text above is simply false.
Any researcher in biology would love to publish results that show that ToE is wrong. It would boost their career really much, make them famous. There is just the problem that it is not enough to claim that ToE is wrong, there is a need to have credible evidence showing that the claim is true.
Always when someone wants to publish a paper showing that some commonly used theory cannot explain the results, the manuscript will be inspected really carefully to confirm that the methods, results and their interpretation are credible - that is how scientific publishing works in all branches of natural sciences. Therefore, the claims need to be based on credible results/facts and credible interpretations of the facts, otherwise the other researchers will not believe the claims.
So far, nobody has been able to show that ToE cannot explain the cumulative data. There are always minor details where we have too little knowledge to conclude anything certain but where we have more data, ToE has been able to explain and predict the data better than any competing hypothesis.
Claiming that ToE is wrong becomes interesting when you can base your claim on credible facts. As long as you do not have any, your claims are just personal opinions.
Doesn’t work says you. Strange I look around and see that it works just fine.
I don’t think I have seen any offended scientists. Just scientists that keep pointing out you are wrong for which you get offended.
They never will.
You just don’t get it.
ToE is the best science can come up with. They will never include God. so it will never change.
As for it not working…
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
They will never believe that it doesn’t work either.
It must work. It has to work. There is no other answer (that they can see) So it works!
well near enough
Who care about IC or ID. They cannot exist.
And that is the end of it.
Cynics unite!
Richard
This is incorrect. Theologically speaking, God has “restricted [them] to exclude God” – He has provided no means for detecting His activity.
Nope – God did. He’s the one Who designed a universe where He is hidden.
Strange how you seem to think scientists are more powerful than God.
So why do you demand that scientists hammer them together?
I think the idea is that other sciences are merely amoral while evolution is somehow immoral.
Actually you can, you just need the right instruments.
Only in your imagination.
But so far it does. You complain about it, but you have yet to provide a single instance where it fails – and pretty much every attempt just shows you don’t understand the theory, or how the science community works, to wit:
They can’t – God has not allowed for a divinometer.
From where I sit, you’re demanding that scientists rebel against what God has established.
No, it works because so far there isn’t the least evidence that it doesn’t.
I wish there was – it would make biology more fun.
Like ID, theistic evolution includes a wide range of positions. The two overlap to some extent, despite the tendency for popular ID to misrepresent TE as deistic evolution.
The sun indeed can promote darker skin. But if you ask me what causes darker skin and I say that is an increased production of melanin by the skin cells, it is not reasonable to assert that I am denying the sun’s role. The sunlight is an underlying cause; the action of the cells is triggered by it (or various other factors).
Science is largely incompetent to detect God’s working. This does depend, in part, on exact definitions. Supposing we had a convenient time machine to transport various analytical chemistry equipment back to Cana about AD 30. We could set it up to monitor the water and register a sudden change to wine. So what? We already have the report from the analytical chemical apparatus of taste buds that were available at the time. All science could say is “something unusual happened”. We need insight outside of science to conclude that it was a divinely-worked miracle, if one does not consider a conclusion based on “science isn’t explaining this” to be a science-based conclusion.
In I Cor. 15, Paul expresses dismay at the prospect of having been a false witness for God. Jesus commissioned the disciples to be His witnesses, faithfully telling what they know, not His PR agents trying to put out the flashiest spin. Thus, it seems prudent to be cautious about claiming that something must have happened miraculously. Evolution by natural selection works very well as a description of the physical processes for creating new kinds of organism. We’re far from knowing everything that a complete model of biological evolution would need to explain, much more from having a detailed physical explanation for everything. But we have not run up against any brick walls of inexplicability. Rather, areas with less study and/or less data get blurrier. One’s personal inclinations might affect how likely it seems that the whole process was achieved using the means of evolution, but we do not have any evidence that it wasn’t.
But just as the narrow focus on skin cells doesn’t mention the role of UV rays in promoting the process, the scientific question of the physical processes of evolution does not get at more important questions such as God’s role in the process, what His purposes for creation might be, and what we ought to do with the abilities He gas given us.
That’s brilliant! Blame God for scientists’ shortfall!
But he isn’t hidden! Only to those who insist on a specific type of revelation.
I am not demanding that of scientists or science. I am demanding it of Christians who should be able to.
That statement is subjective. It is not and cannot be demonstrated to the satisfaction of legalism.
because I do not agree with them!
You need to distinguish between agreement and understanding.
Richard
By what authority?
Richard
The same authority that says a doctor can do a better job of setting a broken bone than you.
Not the same
And you cannot be certain that I have not got that skill. They are unconnected.
Evolution will never be a proven fact that can be defined in terms of right and wrong. There is no human authority that can decree it.
Richard
Edit:
At its peak, there were bone setters in virtually every mine in the UK who were completely untrained and not scientists.
And yet based on your human authority you say the TOE is wrong. What is that saying about pots and kettles?
Is there a difference between claiming you are right and claiming someone is wrong.
Hmm
I guess if you are claiming to be right you are claiming a definitive answer that all must agree with
If you are claiming someone is wrong, but not claiming the right answer then you are just refusing to accept someone’s arrogant assertion while leaving the door open for further discussion or alternatives.
Not the same in anyone’s book.
(Unless you are the one claiming to be right?)
I do not claim to know the answer. I just claim that you do not either.
Richard
Absolutely – to do otherwise is blasphemous, expecting scientists to have divine attributes.
Of course He’s hidden – scripture says so, and portrays it so, and if He weren’t faith would be destroyed.
No, it’s analytical – to the extent that math and computer simulations can verify things, ToE works.
And the longer and more it does, the more it points to the glory of God, just as does cosmology.
I do so distinguish – and you repeatedly demonstrate that you do not understand the theory.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.