And I assume that you feel evolution is a little too reasonable? [quote=“grog, post:241, topic:35076”]
evolutionists claim that there is almost magical nature in the sun.
[/quote]
I don;t think so. Magic is pretty much off the table in science.[quote=“grog, post:241, topic:35076”]
et an evolutionist cannot admit that the handiwork such as a human brain is God’s direct work
[/quote]
Again, you paint with a broad brush and fall into the AIG tactic of lumping all who accept evolution into one pot. Sort of like saying all Christians are like Westboro Baptist. (Not that I accept them as Christian…).
I’ve probably wasted enough time with this today. Perhaps need to give up the internet for Lent. Will have to consider that.
It would be nice to have a real first name. But “Grog”, you need to tighten up your sentence and paragraph structure as it is difficult to follow your line of thought. If you want a fruitful dialogue you should tighten up your argument and not polemicize as you do. Your muddied thinking is difficult to read, let alone, answer your concerns. But again, it is due to others’ grace that they even respond to your ad hoc blather. Peace
I did this for Chris Falter and will kindly ask you of the same for my enrichment. Chris asked me to give stats for where I suggested that you cannot even assign a probability to the case for bacteria to form to complexity in no number of years. I believe that you told me that your ministry is more of a old earth creationism group than theistic evolutionist. With both of these items, I was wondering if you could you answer for you how biologos would answer the below?
So my question for you is this. With these following ingredients:
1.bacteria that God created or some similar form which was designed with the ability to duplicate, adjust and adapt to its environment.
2.placed in an environment suitable for life which God created we call earth.
3. with energy which God created by the sun and stars.
4.Lots of time…millions of years
5.And last ingredient is that God has absolutely no interaction in the process of the development, adaptation and change in the life of this bacteria like substance in not one single piece of that multi million year span. I choose to call this the “miraculous”
Do you believe that these ingredients in numbers 1 through 5 are the soil enough for the incredulous complexity and sexual design of both of the differing human genders who have the ability to procreate to come to fruition via the process of the evolution of the bacteria like substance?
If not, what ingredient/s would you add or subtract from this list?
As stated, you really cannot leave God out of equation unless you are a deist, and I am not. Since earth is a series of one, it is impossible to state the odds if God chose to do it this way, but just for the sake of musing , I would think about one in 10 billion or so. About the number of stars in a galaxy, to produce one earth. Or perhaps even one in 10 billion billion, whatever that is, about the number of stars in the universe. (I may be off by a factor of a few billion but that is just musing anyway)
Greg wrote “I am saying that God did in the way that is sensible to human reasonableness as it is fashioned after the image of God.”
Greg it’s been interesting reading this thread. The question of human reasonableness can also be used to push back against AIG and other early earth creationists. Such as: 1. The time it takes light to travel from distance galaxies. The early earth proponents come up with some kind of time shift theory. 2. Similarly, hyper fast specie development after the ARK to account for all the different types of animal.
For some of us this pushes at “human reasonableness” when it seems that the model you are proposing is continually playing catch-up to explain scientific data/discoveries. I’m sure other Forum Members can cite other examples.
I don’t follow. I don’t know of anyone who claims that an organization like AIG pays the average staff member high salaries. Furthermore, the economy of that area of Kentucky is appalling. (That is why the government there sold AIG the land for the Ark Encounter for one dollar.) People are happy to take virtually any kind of job, even at minimum wage.
So I don’t understand why grog thinks that we should be impressed that AIG’s average employee is willing to work at low pay. That is why people do when few jobs are available. When an employee has a family of six to support, it is even easier to believe.
Yes, grog. As you said, this is absolutely the truth. Nobody finds it hard to believe.
Yes, grog. The God I serve is wise enough and powerful enough to create laws of physics and a creation which can do exactly those kinds of things. You need to greatly expand your view of God’s abilities!
As to your item #5, I reject such a tiny view of our Creator. God doesn’t have to tweak and supervise his creation to make it accomplish his will. God got it exactly right the first time. Why do you insist on making God sounds like a bumbling, fumbling “inventor” who has to nurse his invention along, because otherwise it would go completely awry? Only a very weak deity would have to constantly intervene! (To me, that view of the Creator borders on blasphemy!)
(The fact that I’ve seen the power of genetic algorithms to solve enormously complex problems and building sophisticated structures using a random number generator convinced me that God certainly can do all of these things you listed.)
I also understand why you have dodged virtually every one of my questions and responses. You’d rather focus on your emotion-based arguments. You have isolated yourself in your own fear-induced echo-chamber. (I do understand your dilemma. I used to do the exact same thing when I was an anti-evolution “creation science” advocate.)
Differing belief systems require different guidelines for how we quiz reasonableness in their suggestions. My response to, for example, Bilogos which suggested that most of the scientific evidence points to God seeding the planet and naturalism taking it from there all the way to complexity, then I quiz them using the standards they abide by including the trustworthiness of science and the ability for the natural to create complexity and design out of very little. That’s why I quiz Biologos on scientific statistics for occurrences and on the illogical conclusion that macro evolution must be true if we see just the micro version and long ages only. That is illogical and an unscientific conclusion. Since Biologos also includes the theistic part in the equation, I then quiz them on their Biblical abidance when it comes to how we got here and others. I have been left wanting in this area sorry to say.
Towards creationist guys like me, we may remain undecided about how old the earth because the God of the Bible transcends time and our comprehension of ages because of this at times may be skewed. And if God and His ways transcend ours, our science on creation methodologies may be skewed and we may not be able to always discover the correct one so one cannot hammer us on the scientific level either or the lack of choosing science for proving things as well. And I don’t see any legitimacy in the idea that energy and natural selection and nothing else for evolving men in their design and women with reproductive abilities and all the rest from bacteria or common decent. We have never witnessed bacteria ever evolving into non bacteria on small levels let alone suggesting that complexity in reproductive systems etc came from these types…no matter how much time. I trust that God created and not amoral energy because He said He did and because it is illogical within the world that I live to suggest that energy with no intelligent ability has ever had the ability to design…end of story and if you ask me for an explanation, I turn you to His Word and I turn you to your common sense in view of the nature of the things we can understand like how energy is not life breathing intelligence.
I need to do a better job about showing the quote that I was responding to…not quite savvy on how I use this website yet. So someone was questioning the financial integrity of the AIG org. He was suggesting that I was lying about how many in ministry there do not live lavishly. I will try to remember to provide a quote I was responding to better.
The reason I include number 5 is to suggest that if an evolutionists insist that God did not create kinds but insists that He creates via evolution from bacteria all the way to complexity, and does not interact at all in the process, then what they are suggesting is what is absolutely and astoundingly asinine logically and statistically. They are suggesting that one simple life form can be duplicated and formed into exacting complex forms by the power of nature alone…Think about this for a minute. We never see bacteria evolve into nonbacteria in real time yet we think that it can evolve via time without one single interaction by God all the way to complex mankind? This is intellectual suicide. If this was spelled out in the Bible, I would trust it. But it is only a man made thought and everything that we know about energy suggests that a single celled creature can’t be expanded to a planned outcome by this amoral force. This I can only equate to a man made belief system that has nothing to do with Christianity.
Let’s suppose for the moment that Biologos or somebody else is saying that “naturalism takes it from there.” What is wrong with God creating “nature” to operate as he wills? Why do you prefer the idea of God doing such a poor job of creating that he has to constantly intervene after creation to make things conform to his will? Why do you have such a weak view of God?
That seems blasphemous to me. The God of the Bible I worship is far wiser and more powerful than that. He got it right the first time (i.e., when he created the world.) He doesn’t have to keep tweaking and fixing to get things right.
As to evolution and natural processes, I “believe in” them because God gave me eyes to see them and ears to hear them!
The reason is because at this point you have bought the naturalistic philosophy hook line and sinker and have suggested that placing a little “God did this sticker” makes it alright. God becomes nothing more than a substitute asteroid or alien seed planter and He is kicked down the road and eliminated from consciousness. On top of this, this circumvents the ideals of the gospel in Romans chapter 1. I have stated already that those in godless naturalistic philosophy who are lost and in need of relationship with a God of love I would love to share the goodnews with, with gentleness and kindness. On the other hand, those who claim to be Biblical Christians yet buy the majority of the same ideas of the same naturalistic philosophy and prettying it up with God lipstick I believe need to be handled with more concern and direct intent to call them into question. Teachers will be judged more strictly and all that guys like me can do is open the Word and let it reflect its light where God will take it from there.
I have experienced God’s chastisement in response to my unbelief in certain precepts in His Word and I am glad for it as I am in a better place.
Careful what you are calling ridiculous. The fact is, humans can create computer programs which use evolutionary algorithms designed to mimic biological evolution, and these computer programs demonstrate very convincingly and astoundingly that they can grow in complexity by any definition. If mere human ingenuity can set up a system which causes an increase in complexity through natural processes, how much better must be the system that God set up? Do you really want to stake your flag on saying it is beyond him?
I am sorry no one has yet given a detailed description of the evolution of sexual reproduction. I know there are resources out there on it, I will try to look some up and bring you a digestible summary, if I have time. It’s a complex and fascinating topic, to be sure!
There’s an extensive Wikipedia article: Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia but it’s probably more technical than you would appreciate, and not specifically aimed at a evolution-questioning perspective. Like I said, hopefully I’ll have time to address this in detail for you.
Well I trudged through the video I found here on this website explaining a theory on how flight became a thing in the evolutionary world and it was so agonizingly unscientific and illogical. a baby bird flapping its wings without functioning wings and running up a slanted tree branch while flapping them to avoid danger being the undergirding principle to explain how a four legged animal develops the capability of flight? Would not partially feathered arms on a four legged animal be the factor to make the animal more suseptable to danger and thus get the shaft in the process of selection? Evolution disproves evolution. Not to mention that the partial feathering with feathers just so happen to be really really well designed for flying animals nonetheless?? All by chance and by time and by energy by the way. Ugh and ugh and ugh and ugh. Deserving of a Chris Carter’s “Common Man!” So I really could not bear yet another video that attempted to explain how mindless evolution came up with male and female gender and all of the intracacies needed for design in the sexes in procreation…
And I honestly cannot believe that someone would make a computer program designed after such a far fetched theory and hint that this suggests that this bolsters the theory as fact.
I am honestly beginning to believe that there have been so many years of the religious belief of evolution indoctrinated into the minds of folks from the bountiful sources of philosophical naturalists in this day in age that to try to circumvent this thinking even with statistical logic falls on def ears. I am very sorry…I love people and all and am learning that belief is powerful and difficult to overcome. Belief in the truth is so important and God creating fully functioning plants and animals to be placed in time make more sense logically and is more in line with the Bible than explaining complexity from energy. That is what we should be feeding our minds with! I don’t know what else to say. Stop clapping
It sounds like there would not be much further point in showing you resources or evidence at the current time, then, I guess. I’m sorry because I, too, agree that “belief in the truth is so important” and I’m saddened that there are so many true things you can’t believe.
Just to set the record straight on your first paragraph, it would be one of many two-legged dinosaurs running around flapping its arms, not four-legged, and if it’s plain that flying fish and flying squirrels successfully evade predators without full flight, and many non-flying dinosaurs are now known to have had feathers, I think that takes care of your objections. Although it would never occur to me to look for a really solid scientific case in a video; videos are supposed to be entertaining.
You have obviously never chased a chicken around a large barnyard, Greg.
Go try to catch a half dozen hens in a meadow and tell us how it goes.
Greg, you are constantly making appeals to “common sense”…
About those chickens you tried to catch, but couldn’t: did they fly above the trees to escape you?
[quote=“grog, post:250, topic:35076”]
what they are suggesting is what is absolutely and astoundingly asinine logically and statistically.[/quote]
You still love to make statistical proofs without presenting any math. Did you even read what I wrote earlier?
Those are good questions, Greg. I’m just trying to figure out how deeply I need to go in answering them, considering your lack of experience with thinking in terms of statistical inference. I’ll get back to you in a day or two, God willing.
kinda silly to suggest anything to do with chickens has anything to prove about the validity of evolution of birds don’t you think? There are many non flying birds and this does not mean that they are in the process of evolving or devolving or if they were just designed that way. Right?
I did read it and my comment back to you in my line of questioning was purposeful toward the end of determining how much work i have to accomplish to determine the probability of an event of development via evolution to complexity according to your views.
And I am really surprised that you are not able to just rattle off the theistic evolutionary terms that you believe in in response to my question. That should have been easy. That is highly confusing to me. I have asked others of the same and they have delayed response to me as well. As the neck vein popping responses I have gotten from you all in retaliation to my views and support of yours, I would have expected nothing less than an easy quick response to a well thought out worldview in this area from a simple question…it appears that this is not the case.
If you were to ask my beliefs, my answers would be rattled back to you in an instant because I know what I believe and I have thought through it deeply for about 2 decades now! And I am not alone in this. There are brilliant men and women who love our Lord and are creationists who are like me who see evolution only as a belief system that is more the naturalist feet that the philosophy of naturalism walks upon that gets indoctrinated into the minds of science students from kindergarten through phd programs in college and less objective science. I see the science for adaptation and just don’t see it anywhere for development of complexity of life we have today. Many like minded to myself feel in fact that life complexity from energy so statistically unreasonable that we applaud those few honest scientists who admit that they adhere to it only because they can’t allow God into the science laboratory. I wonder how much mainstream theistic evolutionists and biologos allow God in the lab of discovering how life came to be.
I am sharing a link to a post I made a couple of weeks ago describing a certain class of evidence for common descent. The bottom line result is that the probability that common descent does not explain the evidence is about 1 in 10e168. In other words, the odds in favor of common descent are 10e168 to 1.
How big is 10e168? There are about 10e11 stars in the Milky Way galaxy, our cosmic home. Suppose there were a million million million million million universes and each one had a million million million million Milky Ways. The result is 10e65 stars. Let’s call that truly mind-staggering number the “Greg number,” because my friend Greg is such a big-hearted fellow.
So how many Greg numbers would it take to reach 10e168? 10e168 is equal to ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million Greg numbers.
10e168 to 1 is the odds that common descent is the best scientific explanation for the consistency index data in that post.
You already made a claim about statistics, Greg. In a universe where words have meaning and people say what the mean, I as your reader could rely on your words to conclude that you had calculated a probability.
Now perhaps you are really saying that you did not think the issue through in a mathematical way, and you are not even sure how to do so. There’s no shame in that. Most folks without deep math background don’t understand statistical inference. For good reason, too: who would build the houses if everyone was focused on statistical methods?
Assuming that’s where you are at, I refer you to my last post.
Not at all. The only silly claim made about feathers in this thread was when a certain individual claimed that feathers would slow down any unfortunate animals that had them but couldn’t use them for flight. Chickens prove that that silly claim is without merit. Feathers don’t slow down chickens.
In other words, you think that God and his creation are limited by your failure to understand the science. You constantly place your fallible sense of “common sense” above reality.
(And for the record, I was guilty of the exact same logical failure for many years before I actually learned how evolution works.)
Yet another straw man argument. You need to learn what evolution is!
Exactly! Dependence upon straw man arguments is always intellectual suicide.
Grog, until you learn what evolution is and how evolutionary processes operate, you will keep posting these non-sensical arguments.
You are ignoring everything we are posting to try and instruct you on the basics.
I don’t think I can help you. But I do appreciate your posting your viewpoints. Readers can learn from this exchange.
