Why a Designer?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Buzzard

no one can perform experiments with fish evolving into mammals, for example.

How quickly he forgets.

@Dale

@Buzzard

Until scientists produce life from inanimate matter, they can’t claim to know how it happened.

It may happen, your incredulity not withstanding.

@Buzzard

…evolution - until someone evolves a mammal from a fish, they can’t claim to know how it happened (if indeed it did happen).

You are clueless regarding the eons of time and the billions of mutations involved. God had time to spare, so to speak – he wasn’t in a hurry. I don’t think it’s going to happen in a lab any time soon.

In case you didn’t recognize it, “I don’t think it’s going to happen in a lab any time soon” was gross understatement. It ain’t gonna happen. But don’t be even a little surprised when they isolate genetic sequences that alone or in combination with others that can radically change morphologies!

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

@Buzzard

no one can perform experiments with fish evolving into mammals, for example.

But they can predict successfully and find fossils

And that is comparable how?

@Dale

“I don’t think it’s going to happen in a lab any time soon” was gross understatement. It ain’t gonna happen

And you really do not see this as a problem, or factor?

What it means is that evolution can never be a fact, in the real sense.

@Dale

What’s obvious is you don’t know how the terms ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ are used in science

Been there,

Evolution is only a hypothesis but due to longevity it has been granted theoretical status.
But, in science a theory is considered fact if there is no conflicting scientific theory.

So evolution became a fact by scientific manipulation.

Brilliant

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

Been there

Go here: A recent post.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

But, in science a theory is considered fact if there is no conflicting scientific theory.

What is your conflicting scientific theory to evolution? It cannot be theistic evolution, because you admit that it is not science.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

What is your conflicting scientific theory to evolution? It cannot be theistic evolution, because you admit that it is not science.

That is not the point. The point is that evolution is not a fact by any other understanding.

@Dale

Go here: A recent post.

Please do.

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

The point is that evolution is not a fact by any other understanding.

The point is, you understand neither the science nor the philosophy.

@Dale

So you’re in denial philosophically, denying God’s sovereignty in spite of multiple scriptures, and you’re in denial scientifically, in spite of the multiple and overwhelming evidences for nested hierarchy.

I’m still glad you want to and should include God, but you are making the above mistakes in doing it, wanting ’poofing’ where you shouldn’t, and leaving out God’s sovereign providence where it should be admitted.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

I’m still glad you want to and should include God, but you are making the above mistakes in doing it, wanting ’poofing’ where you shouldn’t, and leaving out God’s sovereign providence where it should be admitted.

We have different perspectives. That does not give you the right to claim superiority over me. I am not making any mistakes. I have claimed that you are, so I guess we are even.

Wha I am saying, and you are not seeing is

You see God in scientific evoltion but the rest of the world does not. By claiming evolution as a fact you are shutting God out,in the eyes of anyone who cannot see God in scientific evolution

Richard

[Buzzard]

@Dale

Tiktaalik

Ah yes … that old chestnut.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

By claiming evolution as a fact you are shutting God out

That’s pretty funny, and Maggie just had a streak of good luck, shutting God out. I claim her ‘lottery wins’ as fact just like I do evolution. I’m sorry you aren’t grasping God’s providence willingly.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Buzzard

Ah yes … that old chestnut.

What a compelling counterargument! Wow!

[Buzzard]

@RichardG

So evolution became a fact by scientific manipulation.

Only in the wonderful world of evolution science can consensus turn a theory into a fact. Fascinating.

[Buzzard]

What does Tiktaalik prove?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Buzzard

Fascinating.

Speaking of old chestnuts, that was vapid before the first one.

@Buzzard

Only in the wonderful world of evolution science can consensus turn a theory into a fact.

I’m not fascinated by your fascination, but it also happens in physics.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

That you qualify as a genuine @Richard wannabe.

@Dale

The point is, you understand neither the science nor the philosophy.

@Dale

So you’re in denial philosophically, denying God’s sovereignty in spite of multiple scriptures, and you’re in denial scientifically, in spite of the multiple and overwhelming evidences for nested hierarchy.

I’m still glad you want to and should include God, but you are making the above mistakes in doing it, wanting ’poofing’ where you shouldn’t, and leaving out God’s sovereign providence where it should be admitted.

[Buzzard]

@RichardG

You see God in scientific evoltion but the rest of the world does not.

Good point, Richard. The danger is that the theory of evolution can be interpreted as “Life did not need a Creator since it’s the result of an understood natural process.” I’ve encountered several former Christians online who lost their faith precisely due to that interpretation.
I also recall a Catholic nun back in the 1970s telling us, “They lied to us. They said we were created, but we evolved” … a few years later she left her Order.

It’s interesting that the vast majority of evolutionary scientists are atheists … who want all of us to accept their theory as fact.
The late William B. Provine stated, “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”

[Buzzard]

@Dale

I’m not fascinated by your fascination

I’m fascinated that you’re not fascinated by my fascination.

but it also happens in physics.

No matter how desperately you want to believe it, it’s impossible for ToE to become a fact.

[Buzzard]

@Dale

That you qualify as a genuine @Richard wannabe

I agree … I will never be as intelligent and sensible as RichardG.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Buzzard

The late William B. Provine stated, “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”

The problem is that some Christians who are scientists do not see it. They have managed to combine their faith into evolution. They then assume that all Christians do the same.

I have seen evolution wreck faith. In many ways YEC is less dangerous. The problem with YEC is that science works against it. Fortunately most YECs can mentally dismiss this.

I have argued against YEC but it can damage an otherwise strong faith.

I have more problems with scientists who claim a Christian viewpoint. They look at my criticisms of evolution as a personal affront to their scientific work.

And, of course, some make it their mission to discredit me (mentioning no names)

Richard

[Buzzard]

@RichardG

The problem is that some Christians who are scientists do not see it. They have managed to combine their faith into evolution. They then assume that all Christians do the same.

I have more problems with scientists who claim a Christian viewpoint. They look at my criticisms of evolution as a personal affront to their scientific work.

I know what you mean.

And, of course, some make it their mission to discredit me (mentioning no names)

“Your problem, Richard, is that you don’t understand how evolution works”, for example?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Buzzard

“Your problem, Richard, is that you don’t understand how evolution works”, for example?

Sigh,

Yes

Better not go there.

Richard