And how do these impinge on God?
Richard
âSighâ!
As above! How do these things impinge on the existence of God?
Such questions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the actual issue involved.
Have my criticisms ever been from a Christian or God perspective?
Richard
No more or less than evolution. Surely the existence of God is not threatened by the development of feathers.
4 Likes
Iâm intrigued as to what âexperienceâ can outweigh understanding a work like Nick Laneâs The Vital Question?
I disagree. Unless you think that God is the instigator of the transformations (not part of TOE). The whole point of TOE is that it is mindless and chaotic. There is no room for God, no need for Him. Nature can develop itself.
Whether I believe the precise details of Genesis 1 or not, I still believe that God created me. Created, not fluked. Now if TOE could prove otherwise, I would have to rethink carefully my relationship with God. However, TOE has flaws in it that its proponents refuse to acknowledge or address. I do not argue with theology, I argue with science.
Science is just the hand of God in ways we can see and, in theory, understand. Paul, in Romans, claims that we can see God in His creation. It appears that TOE disagrees with Him. I do not.
I believe the bible in the manner, I believe, is correct. I am less worried about details ;more concerned with the global message. Genesis 1 declares God to be sovereign of His creation. TOE claims that creation is self-built and self-sustained. TOE relies on chaos, time, and chance. As such it is to be challenged at every step. (IMHO)
Remember, I accept that there is an evolutionary process. I just dispute that this process is sufficient to create me. (vanity, vanity, all is vanity)
Richard
You are dancing around and moving the goalposts. I was responding to this comment of yours:
âso I will not agree with any theory that dismisses Him or relegates Him to the sidelines.â
1 Like
The Bible tells us that God controls every process that was known at the time such as weather for example or throwing dice. It is also silent on things that were not known at the time such as the source of light coming from the sun. Would you agree?
Now science has explained weather, dice, and nuclear fusion. Does this mean there is no room for God?
So yes the TOE does not include any involvement of God as stated by science but does that mean God really isnât involved? Again, the Bible says God is.
You really can have your cake and eat it too. The science says No God, but the Bible says God. The whole point of EC is we believe God is in control of a process that science says God is not. This is why people keep bringing up things, like the weather or plate tectonics, that you donât think apply.
Edit to add:
You description of the evolutionary process contains some common misunderstandings of how the process works. If you would like a better understanding just ask.
3 Likes
INDEED!!! It makes no sense. Does Richard think he was made like a golem out of mud with necromancy rather than by a mother and father??? Why is the biological event with mother and father a creation by God, but biological evolution is not a creation by God? It seems to me that by his logic, it was only Adam and Eve who were created by God and the rest of us were not created by God at all!
What you are asking is like someone who does not like a particular type of cake being accused of not liking biscuits. The only connection is that they are baked.
I am not critcising all branches of science or even Biology par-se. Only TOE.
Look, scientists have been studying microbes for years because their life span is so short. But, has any one of them become anything more than a microbe? They might become adapted to different environments or resistant to certain toxins or even anaerobic instead of Oxygene based. But they are still microbes. You can breed new types of dog but they are still dogs. You can genetically alter wheat but it is still wheat. There is no living proof that Evolution can do anything other than diversify and specialise.
The only evidence is fossils and the interpretation of what is seen is so jaundiced as to be ridiculous People see what they want to. Anything that looks vaguely right be it 2 dimensional or just a vague impression is latched onto like the Piltdown man. And so the theory grows more and more outrageous and further and furthe from any sort of reality. And it is taught as gospel. So I criticize it, whether it contradicts the bible or not. I criticize what I see of TOE. I have watched it grow, and it is an abomination in my sight. And that is the end of it.
Richard
Talk about putting words into my mouth. I have never said, or even implied such things.
I have never proposed a method of creation. I have never suggested how I think God might use Evolution. I have never suggested that I need to be created specifically by God, in the manner you have put. âMeâ means a sentient human being of the human race. An individual of a race that is the pinnacle of a Creatorâs creation, rather than a fluke of genetic morphology and blind luck. The difference between design and chance. TOE is chance. I beleive in God. And if that is a crime I am sorry. But, I will apologise if my use of language is inadequate.
Richard
You criticize what you donât understand. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, both in the fossil record and in the relationships of living creatures. Look at human chromosome #2. It shows that two ape chromosomes were fused in the past. Also, humans have a nonfunctioning gene that makes egg yolk. .
1 Like
Maybe it is because you keep doing that to us with suggestions that we do not believe in God or that we believe in creation by blind luck and chance.
NO. It is not.
No more than the new AI algorithms beat the best human players at strategy games by chance. It is a learning algorithm. It is the same way that toddlers learn, frankly. Yeah they try out different things in a largely random way. That is the nature of exploration. But in the end what this does is according to what works, discarding what does not work.
Design is the difference between living organisms and machines. We are not the product of engineers and watchmakers. We are the product of one who makes living things, like a farmer, shepherd, teacher, or parent. Those who create not by design but by participation in the lives of living organisms which make their own choices to grow and learn for themselves and not to be put together in a factory by engineers and designers.
I am accustomed to a wide range of creationists.
Hmm. Hereâs one of the many pieces of evidence for feathers in non-avian dinosaurs.
[Source: Hone DWE, Tischlinger H, Xu X, Zhang F (2010) PLoS ONE 5(2): e9223. License: CC BY 2.5 Deed | Attribution 2.5 Generic | Creative Commons]
You think the structures the white arrows are pointing to are not feathers; in fact, you think itâs outrageous that anyone else thinks theyâre feathers. Are you sure you have looked at the evidence for feathers? They sure look like feathers to me. How do you know theyâre not?
In any case, you didnât answer my question. What is your basis for concluding that thermal insulation wouldnât provide an adaptive advantage large enough for feathers to be selected for?
2 Likes
So I donât understand? Tell me. If Survival of the fittest means that one group takes over once created, why are there still other apes? Why didnât; the new strain just replace the old one? isnât that the meaning of Survival of the fittest?
And, why hasnât another intelligent and cognisant variant been produced perhaps via reptiles? (Cardassians!) Or maybe fish?
Do you actually understand the scope and parameters of evolution?
In all the experiments humanity has done, have they ever succeeded in replicating the claims of TOE?
Richard
Precisely
You see what you are told to see.
It may just be the plant the creature was on top of. Feathers do not fossilise properly. All you have is a shaddow.of something
Richard
I see is what looks exactly like feathers, arranged exactly where feathers should be. Once again, your argument amounts to stating your opinion.
3 Likes
Perhaps because that is not what âsurvival of the fittestâ means.
Great question! Survival of the fittest is only one of the mechanisms of evolution --thereâs founder effect, etc. You might like reading some evolution texts (they are a bit dry sometimes, but you get some good nuggets; that was my capstone in undergrad). Stephen Gould was the author of my text, about how punctuated equilibrium helped form species, too.
Itâs a bit like how our great-grandparents in Africa diverged into multiple different types from Asia, Australia, Europe, etcâitâs variation, not replacement.
Hereâs a summary, but there are tons more examplesâwhy sexual dimorphism, like in peacocks, persists (even though thereâs no obvious survival advantage), for example.
Mechanisms of Evolution â Concepts of Biology (opentextbc.ca)
Thanks.
Hereâs another specimen of the same species:
Here the feathers look exactly like those on the other specimen but are even clearer
3 Likes
Hippos and whales are still mammals. Humans are still primates. The thousands of crazy beetles are still beetles.
Plants have feathers? Seriously, nobody has to tell you what to see. You have to deny your own eyes not see what is plainly apparent.