Time can do anything?

[St.Roymond]

@Dale

@RichardG

Is that a reflection of the confidence in evolution or a blind belief that anything is indeed possible

It more than reflects the certainty of the evidence (nested hierarchies, genetics and paleontology, to name just a few). It has nothing to do with blind belief like yours, not accepting the evidence out of incredulity and insisting on God’s ‘poofing’ morphological and metabolic changes, not that he couldn’t, but that’s not what he did.

It also reflects arithmetic: a hundred mutations a year, multiplied by ten million years, is a billion mutations – quite enough to radically change a genome!

@RichardG

@Dale

Why do you think that is a legitimate analogy?

It is not meant as an analogy of evolution. Only as an example of an impossible task (with or without the earth’s rotation it would still be impossible)

The only impossible part would be the last ten thousand kilometers – we have both the materials and the engineering to build a bridge from the moon to geosynchronous orbit altitude.
But yes, materials science taken at the quantum level seems to have shown we could never get closer than the last ten thousand kilometers – or build a space elevator from Earth out past geosynch.

[St.Roymond]

@rsewell

Dragons with wings in addition to four limbs are not possible.

Apparently not even with genetic engineering, if a recent article I saw on a D&D discussion forum was correct: it addressed the musculature and wing area problem much like the rocket equation and showed that there is no way to add enough muscle to make the wings work to support the body with all those muscles . . . unless you want to radically decrease the body mass by using things like hollow bones and feathers.

[St.Roymond]

@Dale

because it is theoretically possible, isn’t it? (It’s at least imaginable in this layperson’s mind. ; - )

If you could make selected interventions, yes; left to random mutations my guess is the sun would swell up and swallow the planet and the process wouldn’t even be close.

@Dale

Genes can be lost too I believe.

Yep.

= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =

@Dale

@adamjedgar

Christians all accept that sin enterred this world and corrupted everything in it…INCLDING mankinds science.

Especially YECs’.

That’s more a secondary effect; the primary corruption lies in trying to force a modern worldview onto ancient literature.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@St.Roymond

That’s more a secondary effect; the primary corruption lies in trying to force a modern worldview onto ancient literature.

oh bollocks…you are playing on nonsense here with that statement. Just because you make a blanket claim unsupported by biblical theology on a forum, that in no way may be used as a reference to some kind of fact! You have posted texts in the past that supposedly support your view, but they do not…so the statement you make here is unsupported. the irony of your claim is that TEism is the modern view…not YECism.

I have read [EDIT sorry had the wrong person] Dales testimony from the link. I truly appreciated its sincerity however, I am unconvinced that God gives one health problems in order to present a world view that is at odds with practically every major biblical doctrine.

Whether you like it or not TEism is absolutely inconsistent with the biblical theology (supported by the Genesis account of creation and the fall) that Christ died physically on the cross as an atonement for the wages of sin is death! No amount of moral reasoning type argument can fix that problem. You can try explaining it away using science all you like…Christianity is not a science and science is incapable of providing any pathway leading to salvation from sin, only the bible can do that. So science is in all honesty, irrelevant to salvation…in my view, whilst i like science, it isn’t needed for that purpose!

Having said that, I accept that each of us has a different journey in life and i guess we each draw our own conclusions from them…in the bigger scheme of things, it probably doesnt matter if someones was a medical issue and mine mehanical (ie as a young teenager i prayed that God would start a lawn mower that had refused to run for months…it started immediately after my prayer and that was the last time i ever saw it running).

To address the O.P more specifically, I do not belive that even TEists should fall into the trap of thinking that time controls even their world view…God is outside of time…he is not bound by it. To make some kind of argument along these lines is confining/restricting God to something he created. The reality as i see it is this, we are looking at creation through the lense of sin/corruption. What we see is from that perspective and the fact that the vast majority of scientists are not christian…that worries me a lot!

think of Eve, she saw the fruit looked good and so she took it and ate. It tasted good so she took some to adam and he ate. That is the same observational deception we face today. Eve was deceived in interpretation of Gods command not to eat of the tree!

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I think there is a danger here in trying to incorporate miracles into every day living and or theology. It would seem that most Christians here have a tale or two that confirms to them God’s intervention in life. But, God knows what He is doing and what ramifications come from His actions. We therefore cannot second guess when or if He will do it again.
It is generally agreed that the world turns without God “tinkering” all the time. Acts of God are only His because He made the systems that govern them. If you are standing in front of a Tsunami wave then you take your chances with the rest of us with few exceptions. Not that He can’t, more that He doesn’t.
Miracles are, by definition, the exception not the rule

Richard

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@RichardG

Because there is no viable halfway stage.

Having lateral lines like fish; necks, lungs, and a number of other amphibian-like features; a dentition unlike anything else; and the wrong number of toes for anything modern (but the right number for having them be direct analogues to lobe-finned fish fins) isn’t an intermediate state? Archaeopteryx and dromaeosaurids aren’t in an intermediate state? Helcionellids aren’t in an intermediate state? Personally, I’ll go with trusting systematic paleontologists to do their jobs, mostly because I know how systematic paleontology works.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@St.Roymond

unless you want to radically decrease the body mass by using things like hollow bones and feathers.

Crazy talk!

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

@St.Roymond

the primary corruption lies in trying to force a modern worldview onto ancient literature.

oh bollocks…you are playing on nonsense here with that statement.

Okay, then, tell me where the idea comes from that Genesis teaches science comes from!

I’ll give you a hint: it doesn’t come from the scriptures.

@adamjedgar

Whether you like it or not TEism is absolutely inconsistent with the biblical theology

I don’t care if it’s consistent or not because TE doesn’t make any claims that are contrary to the text. In fact a few years back I sort of enjoyed watching some people that I presume would fall into the TE category re-examine their views in order to eliminate a conflict with the text.
And in contrast, YECists don’t even engage with the text – they don’t even actually admit that it’s ancient literature.

@adamjedgar

TEism is absolutely inconsistent with the biblical theology (supported by the Genesis account of creation and the fall) that Christ died physically on the cross as an atonement for the wages of sin is death! No amount of moral reasoning type argument can fix that problem.

There is no problem. As I understand TE, there’s nothing in it that conflicts at all with the Incarnation, including the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Really, all TE seems to do boils down to offering a view on just how it was that God made Adam from the dust (if you want to take that literally in modern English; in the Hebrew it’s a reiteration of a common ancient near eastern theme that humans are mortal), and just how things went when God commanded the Earth and sea to “Bring forth!” That latter is a worthy endeavor because it’s clear from the text that God didn’t make all the animals individually, He called on the Earth and sea to produce them without giving any specifics.

@adamjedgar

So science is in all honesty, irrelevant to salvation

But for YEC, science is utterly critical due to the claim that Genesis teaches science, and if their view that all its scientific statements are 100% correct is wrong then the Bible is false! That’s exactly the syllogism is taught and exactly why university students abandoned their faith for atheism: they recognized one lie, that the Bible teaches science, but fell for the next one, that if it gets any science wrong it’s false.
Genesis is not the foundation – the Incarnation is. “The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord”, because " For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ".

@adamjedgar

the fact that the vast majority of scientists are not christian

Are you aware that one of the big reasons that Christians don’t go into science is YEC?
Christians should be swarming the sciences to think God’s thoughts after Him, but YEC thinking discourages them.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@RichardG

It is generally agreed that the world turns without God “tinkering” all the time. Acts of God are only His because He made the systems that govern them.

In terms of this planet…i reject that…if one is Christian that cannot be part of their theology. The bible is very specific that God literally keeps the earthly wheels turning because if he withdrew his protection even for a moment…Satan would destroy everything.

That is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning…you have ignored the intent of evil!

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@St.Roymond

Christians should be swarming the sciences to think God’s thoughts after Him, but YEC thinking discourages them.

that is a goal of humanism…to become like God/or self elevation…its not religion my friend. A fundamentally flawed reasoning. The bible already describes philosophically how we develop a relationship with God…and whilst the heavens declare the glory of God, the bible gives us a completely different method of developing/maintaining a relationship with him…and it most definitely is not scientific!

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@St.Roymond

they don’t even actually admit that it’s ancient literature.

Im might be missing your point here…are you trying to make the claim its just a story book or do you actually believe it is the only means by which we may know God and be lead to salvation? As a YEC, i believe the latter and I sincerely hope you do as well.

@St.Roymond

I don’t care if it’s consistent or not because TE doesn’t make any claims that are contrary to the text

that is completely false…lets start with Genesis chapter 1, Chapter 2, and then Chapters 6&7. Then we move forward to the entire Mosaic writings of the Exodus and in particular the Mosaic Tabernacle…which are a literal example of exactly how God would restore his creation back to the former glory at the end of the Genesis creation week…he would do this by sending His Son to die on the cross as an atonement for the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)

You attempt to claim that the death Adam and Eve were forewarnd about in Genesis was only spritual, however, you have no answer for the problem that Christ died physically on the cross as an atonement for the wages of sin = Death

Then we have the entire book of Hebrews (writings of Paul) which illustrate the relationship between the earthly (type) and heavenly (antitype) Sanctuaries and what Christs role in fulfilling the promise given to Eve in the garden of Eden would be!

Then we have the apostle Johns writings in the book of Revelation that link with the book of Hebrews and indeed sum up the entire biblical them of the plan of salvation! you claim this must not be literal…and yet the angels at christs ascention into heaven specifically told us "this same Jesus who you have seen go up into heaven will come again in the same way he went up! I think it universal among mainstream Christians that event is going to happen exactly as described…and we even use the illustration of the story of Elijah when he ran before Ahabs chariot after fire fell from heaven and consumed the alter and sacrifice before Israel and the prophets of Baal …they saw a cloud about the size of a man’s hand on the horizon and it eventually filled the whole sky and it began to rain for the first time in 3.5 years!

Then of course the most famous issue is the 4th commandment…Exodus 20:

8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

only a blind man could possibly say there is nothing in TEism that is in conflict with biblical theology…it conflicts with practically all of it!

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@adamjedgar

@RichardG

It is generally agreed that the world turns without God “tinkering” all the time. Acts of God are only His because He made the systems that govern them.

In terms of this planet…i reject that

I am sorry you feel that way, but to suggest that God actively controls the weather, or any of the other Natural forces you are claiming He is deciding who lives and who does and removing our fredom.

@adamjedgar

you have ignored the intent of evil!

If the Devil was doing it then there would be a bias against Christians (or all theists) and that is not true…

I do not ignore the devil, but His reign is not as absolute as even the Bible might suggest. We are still free to believe or not. And we are free to live or die.without any sort of divine intervention (Good or Bad)

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Does anyone remember that God is omnitemporal and that any usage of tensed language (the only kind we have) needs to have qualifiers (‘disclaimers’) attached?

[klw]

Based on my reading, there are a number of hypotheses/models about how God relates to time and the world, omnitemporality being just one proposition. Each model seems to have certain explicatory advantages but also shortcomings. Personally, I’m not prepared to die on the hills of any of these attempts at describing God’s relationship to time (as long as the model permits libertarian free will). I accept that my limited human brain can’t fully grasp the nature of God’s being and transcendence.

Out of curiosity, how would do you answer these two challenges to the omnitemporality idea that I read from a philosophy blog site?

The view that God is simply timeless (omnitemporal) faces two insuperable difficulties: (1) an atemporal deity cannot be causally related to the temporal world, if temporal becoming is real, and (2) timelessness is incompatible with divine omniscience, if there are tensed facts about the world.

It seems to me that for God to have a real and developing relationship with us (if tensed facts are real), there must be a cause-and-effect, a reaction to the love offered by both sides. If all events are omnitemporal for God (i.e. everything has always existed as simply “now” for him) it is unclear to me how he could experience the dynamic nature of true relationship. But maybe it’s just my simple brain sputtering out…

have a great day and enjoy the time, such as it is…

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I certainly don’t deny that there are things beyond our grasp (there had better be, since God is who he is), but I am not going to make dogmatic statements about his relationships to time and to cause and effect like your (1) and (2) above. Remember that he is inscrutable and unfathomable.

The evidence of cause and effect involved in recognizing spacetime slices, and given his omnipresence in space, is pretty compelling and conclusive that one of his more amazing attributes is omnitemporality.

I would like to see cause and effect arguments for (yes, once again ; - ) his providential interventions into the lives of his children. A flowchart or spreadsheet would be nice, detailing the orchestration of the specific times and places of the causal events required in the myriad prerequisite sequences that led to the timings and placings that effected the instances that Maggie Eriksson and Rich Stearns experienced.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@klw

timeless (omnitemporal)

(They are not really synonyms – a more accurate one for omnitemporal would be ‘timefull’. Something can be timeless – including God – without being omnitemporal.)

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

Time can do anything?

Time cannot do anything.

But life is a self-organizing process with limitless potential. Life over time can accomplish as much as we have and a great deal more.

The problem here is the author of the OP sees living things as mere objects – things and tools engineered to accomplish whatever the designer plans and nothing more. It is all nothing but a big Lego set and all the creativity and ingenuity is in the child playing with it. This is insulting not only to human beings and all living things but also to the creator made rather infantile in his objectives and abilities. It may be a God and religion quite useful to the employment and power of a professional religionist but not very interesting to intelligent and educated human beings who know a scam when they see it.

I see value in religion only because it can also be about a God with considerably more ambition and ability than a child with a toy. I see a God seeking a relationship with beings who have infinite potential derived from a process called life with limitless abilities to create things over time. Now someone who values only power and control would never be so foolish as to create something like that because there is too much of a chance it can take over and ruin everything.

What kind of God would take a risk like that? It is a God who values love and freedom more than power and control. It is a God who might become a helpless human infant to grow up among those He has created to live among them teaching them before being reviled, abused, and murdered by them. I cannot imagine the God of power and control ever doing something like that and why would he need to. Indeed, given the reality of our lives, I find it difficult believe that a God of that latter sort exists at all unless he is evil and sadistic - a devil god. No… even then it looks far far more likely that this devil god is an invention of human beings to serve their own evil ends.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@mitchellmckain

he author of the OP sees living things as mere objects

I have never even implied such. This is your understanding of design not mine

@mitchellmckain

Now someone who values only power and control

Again no. This is your understanding not mine

@mitchellmckain

there is too much of a chance it can take over and ruin everything

Ecclesiastes 3?

admittedly we have done our darnest to disprove it but the principle holds. The eath is self-repairing (within reason) An ice age would be the ultimate repair attempt (Deliberate personification for understanding)

And still God would not need to interfere! So much for the hyper-controlling persona.

It is time you got off this train wreck understanding of yours.

Richard

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@RichardG

admittedly we have done our darnest to disprove it but the principle holds. The eath is self-repairing (within reason) An ice age would be the ultimate repair attempt (Deliberate personification for understanding)

LOL Obviously only someone who sees no value in human civilization would say such a thing. As long as the religionists are the top dogs everything is great as far as they are concerned.

But the God I BELIEVE IN wants more than just the slothful servant who does nothing more than survive. The God I believe in wants us to learn, grow and realize all of our potential which is much more than the middle ages dominated by a church of mystery and ignorance.

@RichardG

And still God would not need to interfere!

God created for a relationship. It is not about interference but participation – being a part of the lives of those He created.

@RichardG

It is time you got off this train wreck understanding of yours.

Yours is the train wreck both in science and theology – clashing with the objective evidence and giving little reason for intelligent people to believe in such nonsense. …all just to make religion more useful and powerful to those wielding it. i.e. mine is a train wreck only for them, pulling the rug out from under them. Cannot be surprised they don’t like it. …but cannot be surprised other people are not buying the scam Xtianity any more either.

Besides getting off my train will not happen at your station. Atheism is preferable to that.

[klw]

Yeah, I guess this is where the terminology starts to rattle around in my head. I certainly need to do more reading about the logic and philosophy in this area. I think the fundamental question for me is whether an omnitemporal being could still experience the development of a relationship over time, experiencing relational- interactions (events) that aren’t all just “now” for him.