My point is that evolutionists have made predictions, and these were shown to be wrong.
On causality and implications, I would enter into a discussion at a later time.
You are getting your wires crossed.
It is not about whether individual weather systems develop or not, it is about the mechanism that controls them
It would appear that you think that God builds up the clouds, makes the wind blow and the rain fall, just as you think that God controls every change in evolution
And if that is true you obviously have no idea of the consequences of either of those view points
If God controls the minutia of the weather He is directly responsible for all the droughts, Hurricanes, Tsunamis, and any other disaster caused by extreme weather conditions. He sinks boats and starves millions.
And
If He controls every step of change in evolution He is responsible for MS, brittle bones, holes in the heart, Leukemia, natural born deafness or blindness, and millions of other defects that plague humanity. If that is providence it stinks! It is fine for those who are healthy but not much good for the damned. (Diseased and disabled) And that is not a God I would give the time of day to let alone worship or extol.
Furthermore, if the change is made by God then Survival of the fittest and all the other scientific mechanisms that you extol are made redundant, including heredity. It is no longer about carrying genes or traits forward it is about the next stage in God’s progressions. God is building (As I have claimed). So every time you argue in favour of a scientific explanation you are denying your own beliefs. They are incompatible.
And you claim that I do not understand Evolution!
Richard
He wants you to be YEC because he knows how to argue against them.
Richard
1 Like
We do tend to get schooled when we attempt to tell nature how to behave.
Providence without God. You nailed it. 
Try thinking about this: Is our God One? Does it take more than one to give a gift?
Funny. 
The rules don’t evolve. Systems do.
I don’t have as much difficulty differentiating between when we are talking about VFA and when we are talking about VFB as you do.
I know he is sovereign over storms on Galilee and in kidneys, and that he providentially intervenes in his children’s lives and on their behalf.
I also affirm all of this:
There is no question whatsoever about that, because you believe that the rules God designed for biology to follow are incapable of producing marvelous changes in morphologies and metabolisms.
1 Like
You do not know what I believe in terms of Theistic Evolution. because I have never explained it. And you have spent so long arguing science at me that it never occurred to you that what you believe about God is in line with what I argue. However we do not see eye to eye on how it is accomplished (surprise surprise!)
And it seems you will continue to argue science in conflict with what you actually believe.
But not with me.
Richard
You have claimed this, not exactly in these words though:
Do I need to waste my time finding it or can you affirm it? (Recall you were talking about the changing metabolisms from cold-blooded to warm-blooded and denying that evolution could do that.)
Given that you do seem to strongly dislike front loading or sufficiency in nature, nor do you subscribe to some sort of divine micro-management, I confess that I am unclear as to your actual position on Theistic Evolution.
3 Likes
He does not have a scientific one because he states pretty explicitly that science denies God, nor does he have a clear theological/philosophical one.
I’ve extracted a few comments here, and you can see more by looking at the comments in the respective threads linked.
1 Like
“We do tend to get schooled when we attempt to tell nature how to behave”.
Be that as it may, the poor results from practical applications of Darwinian evolution theory show that it is less than mathematically sound. When I compare this with some wild statements, such as “evolution is a fact”, it is based on “mountains of data”, and the best (worst) of all, “nothing makes sense without evolution (or words to that effect)”, I for one place little credence on views such as theistic evolution (or similar views).
1 Like
In a nutshell.
TOE as taught is wrong because it claims to be able to create everything, but is unclear as to how it achieves it. It takes a basic transformation and claim that can be used to change anything into anything.
That god must be involved at more than the observant level (having set it in motion) but not in the divine micromanagement (as you correctly observed.)
But I refuse, at present to state how He does do it, because I do not actually think I know,. Possibly by the use of parameters to control the sort of deviations that are possible?
I am also inclined to believe that God adds basic versions of creatures into the mix periodically but allows evolution to develop them (Rather than just expanding from a single cell universally) It would solve some of the gaps that science is reluctant to admit exist.but there are issues about “tinkering” that I cannot resolve.
All in all I do not have a cohesive answer to offer. I only know what does not seem to work, rather than what does. (which I admit is not very helpful or constructive)
Richard
I do not agree the results have been predominantly poor. Antibiotic resistance has been investigated in terms of classic evolutionary process. Phage therapy is completely based on evolutionary principles. A specific mutation of SARS-CoV-2 was predicted well in advance of appearance on the basis of fitness gain in other analogous viruses after adapting to human hosts. Population genetics is math heaven.
Further, chaos is a mathematical field, and chaotic processes are mathematically sound. That the weather for a picnic two months from now cannot be assured in no way casts doubt on meteorology.
3 Likes
That is not my impression either, Ron @rsewell. mRNA vaccines (and tracking how viruses evolve) are pretty important. And now mRNA vaccines are being developed for cancers (and we need to know how cancers evolve). There is now genetic therapy for cycle-cell anemia and maybe cystic fibrosis?1 Both of those are devastating diseases
Another professional like Steve @glipsnort could add to that, and maybe @knor.
1 They’re working on it:
Gene Therapy for Cystic Fibrosis
1 Like
But weather does evolve – the patterns change as the continents drift, as mountain ranges rise or wear away, as more or less ice covers the land, as the sun goes through long-term cycles, even as our solar system passes through vast dust clouds. It has changed as the moon gets farther away, as the atmospheric pressure has dropped, and as the day has gotten longer. It even changes when the planet’s magnetic poles flip. It has changed when flood basalts erupted and covered million of square kilometers with dark lava that cooled to be dark rock, and it has changed when an asteroid or comet has struck the planet, and also it has changed when Earth’s axial tilt has changed.
Yes, the physics of the weather remain the same – but so does the biochemistry of life.
2 Likes
(He misquoted me by taking it out of context.)
I had prefaced my remarks to indicate that evolution is for biologists, so I am not advocating some type of deceit or sham. My concern is focused on somehow making evolution theistic (a difficult phrase to deal with). Clearly the predictive and practical applications of Darwinian evolution has had a chequered history and these shortcomings are for biologists to debate and consider, not theological dogma dealing with God as creator (@Dale ).
2 Likes
Because it is so superbly elegant. As one guy put it, God said, “Bring forth!” and ever since the system just keeps on bringing forth.
2 Likes
Please go read the original post.
I have nothing to do with ID – not since the pseudo-literalists hijacked the term. What’s now called “intelligent design” is not science.
Bingo!
This statement echoes the fine tuning discussions. If by designer you are referring to such views, I would tend to agree, although I would maintain that ‘designer’ is a limiting term and Creator is more appropriate.