Now you are getting carried away with your role as Prophet.
The principle of God-guided evolution is to rely on what Science determines what happened, and to have faith that what happened is PROVIDENTIAL.
1 Like
I guess it depends how common the Common Ancestry is meant to be. If what I am being told on this website is anything to go by there is not a lot of latitude.
I actually found it amusing the way the so called Linear development, became a tree and has morphed into a bush. The joining links getting lower and lower. My view is just continuing that trend down so that it is more like half a sunburst whereby the joint is virtually at the base and things go out linear rather than as branches.
Hey, its a thought!
Richard
Common Ancestry is the assumption.
Science collects and organizes the evidence.
When the evidence contradicts a notionâŚ. the point is argued until a new explanation is found.
Sometimes the original Common Ancestry explanation survives. Sometimes a new one takes over. And some Common Ancestry explanations are still on hold/pending.
Avoid the rigidity of Atheist scientists and you wonât be tempted to argue about your religious ideas.
Ever heard of hyperbole?
Jesus liked it.
Chances are the truth is somewhere in the middle. it usually is.
The idea is to generate thoughts not answers.
(I leave answers and truths to the scientists)
Richard
Can you swear to that?
What rigidity?
You must be kidding.
Richard
I can swear that is my position: the platypus and marsupials are âwithering branchesâ of the evolutionary tree.
If a nuclear holocaust wiped out all mammals outside of Australia âŚ. (and assuming the rabbits in Australia died) âŚ. the withering branch of the Marsupials would become a life line for any new species of mammals!
I am sorry, but I do not see that as being true. Theism does not bow down to what science says, because science cannot see or acknowledge God in any shape or form.
Theism must question anything that contradicts the image of God. If we believe that God is the creator then that will be reflected in both the result and the methodology involved. If God supports the underdog, and the weak then that will be reflected in His creation. In general Nature is amoral, showing neither good or evil (Unless you are going to claim that self preservation and survival is evil). Survival of the fittest, by definition favours the strong or the organised. The mafia are still considered evil, even if they are organised and internally supportive. Nature has produced a balance between predator and prey so that neither has the upper hand, but that does not stop preying on the weak and vulnerable, or sick. So there is a limit to how far compassion and support for the underdog goes. But in the global view, it balances out.
There are anomalies and freaks that seem to have bypassed Natural selection if that is based purely on optimised adaption. Scientific evolution cannot account for these.
Science has a tendency to extrapolate, so that what works in one place, will be expected to work in a disparate one. That is a fallacy. Each situation is unique in nature. We are not dealing with inanimate objects, e are dealing with independent creatures who are not being controlled in any way shape or form. Acts of both compassion and cruelty can arise without rhyme or reason. Science cannot account for the individual, it works on groups and genomes. Solitary existence makes no evolutionary sense! But it is common. monogamy makes little evolutionary sense, but it is common. Killing off the mate makes little evolutionary sense, but it is found. Abandoning the offspring makes little evolutionary sense, but it is common. Feeding frenzies make little evolutionary sense, in the long term. So much of ecology is beyond the scope of scientific evolution. Science imposes human values and understanding onto nature where it doesnât belong. The reason people spend a lifetime studying one group is because they find it doesnât match the expectations.
Science does not know it all. it canât, so theism is not bound by it.
Richard
Arenât you the one who insisted on not PRESUMING a miracle if there is no evidence for it.
Some church fathers were criticized for not employing a âsystematic theologyâ. At last I know what this means. It means listening to a believer who bounces back and forth out of ernest desire not to be on the wrong side of anything.
This thread is filled with your bouncing back and forth âŚ. except when you finally wrote specifically what you believe (well, mostly).
I think your audience finally âgetsâ what you stand forâŚ. even when you are contradicting yourself.
Is there anything else you want to get off your chest?
G.Brooks
Sorry, where am I bouncing around?
I have not implied any miracles.
I am claiming God uses natural means that are indistinguishable from any other natural effect. That does not make them miracles in the accepted usage.
I am not suggesting God âTinkersâ or interferes. Only that His will is done because of how He made creation.
I am sorry, but I cannot separate my faith from science as some people seem to .
I am what I am.
Richard
They arenât PRECURSED then?
I like the get out of jail free rhetoric. At least youâre intellectually honest. Despite there being no statistical ripple, you believe. It would be childâs play to scientifically document the miraculous. Let us see. Not hear old menâs stories. As in DISCLOSURE! and all the other UFO ⌠verbi/garb/age. Itâs all just talk. Talk. Talk. Talk. Talk. Talk.
I have no idea why you are asking if the animals in Australia are or are not âprecursedâ?
Ah! No! Sorry. They were the ones doing the swearing before:
Looks like you need an enema.