There is a difference between beneficial and positive construction but I guess that is the difference between blind acceptance of a mechanism and common sense understanding of a principle (that you deem fallacious)
And this would seem to be the underlying reason for all this “You do not understand” rubbish
Your view is correct, so any other view must be false
If I really understood i would see that your view is correct
I do not see your view is correct so I cannot understand properly
Which is why you (et al) claim I do not know what i am talking about.
What intrigues me is what entirely natural alternative there is to the knowledge that is abiogenesis and evolution? Because you’re not a fundamentalist or TEer are you? So you must be a naturalist? No?
If TE is Theistic Evolution, then that is what i am. I have made no bones about that, so perhaps you had not noticed.
Maybe you do not realise that TE covers a wide scope of beleifs ranging from just acepting scientific Evolution, to insisting that God had/has a more active role than spectator, and science just can’t identify where or when that might affect things.
Why wouldn’t I realise? So you are a TEer. Where does the magic happen? When? Where’s the number one gap nature cannot fill? And no, your position hasn’t been clear at all to me.
Why must there be magic? (mirracles) Why can’t God’s influence look natural? How can sceince tell whether DNA is coded by God or the result of chance? How can science tell whether there are parameters or bias within the mutation system that makes certain combinations or results more likely, or even constuct things that would seem beyond chance? Whay must Theistic mean God interferes? (God of the Gaps)
The crux is in the area that science seems least interested or competent in. The ground roots changes! Science says “random” (whateve that means) but that does not rule out a mechanism or process that science cannot identify or see..
If the changes are not by chance, it changes the whole dynamcs of the progression. Natural Selection beomes more of a check than a control. The changes work because that is how they were intended. Natural Selection just confirms that.
Theistic Evolution is not magic. it is not God moulding out of dust, or magicking things into existence
However Theistic Evolution challenges soem of the conclusions and mechanisms that science claims, and that is where there is contention, dispute, and even insult or offence. Scientists do not like to think that they could hae been fooled, or got somrthing wrong, even if it is beyond their vision.
The one thing that has always confused me on this forum is how touchey and easily offended scientist can be and how determined they are to be shown to be right! And the insults and aggression that comes from this is triuly inhuman. Perhaps they don’t see the deirision , the superiroity, and the dismissal, or the way they treat people who dare to challenge them.
Why would God remove all traces of his intervention? Why does it look like he intervenes by not intervening? That nature is completely self explanatory? No God gaps?
You would not expect a bird to understand how a caterpillar changes into a butterfy. Why do you think that humanity has to be able to fathom out all of the universe, or even God himself?
If God was obvious then He is no longer a God of faith. Sceince cannot complain that God does not show himself to them, or His actions. If they wanted to find or see God, He is there, but He does not force or impose Himself. What you are asking for is contradictory to that.
No God Gaps! Thart was dismissed in the eighties!
The “Gaps” are nothing to do with God. They are to do with human vanity and understanding. Just the thought that science could be wrong or missed something? Oh Dear!
I am owed more than one apology from people on this forum but I doubt they will even realise it let alone admit it.
For you apparently counting on the sun to come up because that’s what it has continuously been observed to do counts as “blind acceptance of a mechanism”.
Both by observation and chemistry, beneficial mutations are inevitable.
You always make everything personal.
I don’t have a view – I just happen to know the actual science, and the math, and remind you of it.
But your stances lie outside that range.
You misunderstand science. You seem to think that an old-time ship’s captain should navigate not according to what his telescope tells him but by someone else’s intuition.
No different than if you told a baker he should be using 10/3o weight oil in his cake.
Scientists know all the things you think you’re trying to tell them – it jsut doesn’t matter, and never will until someone comes up with a Divinometer.
Why would a boss remove all traces of his intervention in an employee’s record?
I think your faith does lack. Because it’s dependent on denying reality. Full fat faith doesn’t have to do that. Yours is skimmed. Like your skin. That can’t take what you give.
If you are a Christian read Romans 14. In the eanm time try another proffession from psychology. I ignore nothing. My faith needs nothing, I do not judge you so kindy offer me the same courtesy.
Just because I do not assess reality through scientific glasses does not mean i ignore it.
Believe it or not, I do not have to think the same as you do.
I’m post-Christian and I’m not judging you beyond using my judgement. Not condemnation. That’s your thin skin again. Try wearing boxing gloves. It cannot take the reaction to your punches. Newton’s Third Law. I’m at least as familiar with Romans 14 as you. How are you interpreting it to yourself?
I’m confused again Richard. You can see bits of evolution, which is science, so you have varifocals?
I believe it in the class of knowing Richard. Nobody says you do.
Romans 14 could be summed up with the word Tolerance, something that is decidedly lacking around here. It also condmens any sort of judgement, or hypercriticism.
Unfortunately it also says we should not argue over disputable matters, which is not good for me because I dispute them but may be Ok for those who think that there is no dispute involved.
No, I just do not look though scientific glasses which appears to be a crime here.
If scientists admitted that there was any dispute, or gave credence to my critiicisms then I would stop arguing But they do not. You do not (seem to)
How many times do I have to make it clea that I am not dictating a view? It is not a case of “Richard says so”. I never has been but…
Instead of arguing the points or ansering the criticisms allI get is
“Richard does not understand”
“Richard is trying to insist”
RIchard is (fill in your own blank)
Instea of being about the subject it ends up about Richard.
Ad hominum doesn’t even come close!
Instead of assuming i do not know what i am talking about, understand it! Accept that there is more than the scientific view! Accept that science might nt be able to see it all, or undrstand it all. It doesn’t mean Richard knows better! It never did! I am not that assertive! I just object to intollerance and over assetiveness and people who think they know better than everyone (not just me).
I do not know better, but neither do you!
Science is my right. Your wrong. My taste. My beholder’s share. And I have no choice in that. As you don’t in yours. I will if I want, I will if I don’t want. If I want. And I can’t want what I want. To paraphrase Schopenhauer. Neither can you. You’re somewhere on the TE spectrum. I’ve been from one end of it to the other. Fell off. All I’m left with is knowledge belief and simplest extrapolation from it. It don’t matter none. You always been on the same place?
