According to some, God Almighty can be defeated by a B-grade scientific theory. LOL.
According to some, God is prohibited from using an amazing method to create the vast, diverse and wonderful biological realms that exist now and have existed in the past. Not understanding it, they call it a B-grade scientific theory and dishonor him thereby.
LOL – dishonoring God is really funny.
Evolution is as much a philosophy as it is scientific theory only to those who conflate science and philosophy.
1 Like
An analogy is a thee-legged horse, but here goes…
If you drop a rubber ball from the top of the fully extended ladder of a large aerial ladder truck (aka a turntable ladder fire appliance1 in the U.K., apparently ; - ), point A, and on a somewhat gusty day, catching a few snapshots of it on the way down, you know the basic route and where it landed, point X.
It seems to me that those denialists who demand to know all the data points from A to X in evolution are comparable to those who demand a high frame rate camera to prove that that the dropped ball got to the ground. All the data points from fossils and genomics and the way they fit into nested hierarchies in a phylogenetic tree demonstrate that evolution is as inexorable as gravity.
1 (Wow. ; - )
God is not in TOE
If He is then the whole dynamics change
Your blindness is your problem not mine
Richard
Rather, this “lack of certainty” calls into question claims of plausibility. Just because someone can imagine something, that is not sufficient to establish that it is in any way plausible.
1 Like
God is not in meteorology either, nor cosmology. Stop conflating.
1 Like
The paradox is in your mind. It does not exist.
God is not in any scientific theory
You insert him but only you know that. Science does not
No, God is not in meteorology either.
And His place in Cosmology diminishes by the decade
You have mantra, and it is wearing thin
Richard
You cannot see that you are contradicting yourself. He never was in cosmology.
Right. Likewise evolution, even though somehow in your conflation you are trying to shoehorn him into it.
But you do not believe that
You think God controls the deviations, but that is not TOE.
You argue TOE when you do not believe the scientific version.
It is you, not me who conflates. I know where God can be, and He is not in scientific TOE
Richard
I see God in everything, like the psalmists, but I know how to distinguish between theology and science.
And you called me blind.
Precisely
But that is not how you argue.
You see God in science. But Science does not see God. So when you argure science you are arguing against your beliefs.
That is the polite version…I am not allowed to say anything else.
Richard
This is exactly what @jammycakes tried to tell you was happening. I have not sensed that this is the definition of the theory of evolution that anyone working in the field of biology who is commenting in this thread is using. And both you and @RichardG continue to argue against “THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION” as you are defining it, and everyone else is saying that your claims that the theory of evolution is all wrong are gratuitous, unscientific, and unsupportable, because they are not using the same definition for the theory of evolution.
For @Buzzard and @RichardG, I have a request: If you are making a statement that is objecting to exactly the claim that “all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via known biological mechanisms” please specify that this is what you are objecting to. And if you are claiming that this is not true, specify exactly why you are claiming it is not true. If you are claiming that the truth is not determinable, that is very different from claiming that descent from a common ancestor is not true. And if you are claiming that something is not true scientifically, then please A) be very clear about what scientific conclusion you are objecting to; and B) show that there are flaws in the science.
1 Like
It is how I argue – when I’m talking about theology, but not when I’m talking about science. I do see God in science theologically, but I don’t try to import him into scientific arguments as you do continuously, ever failing to distinguish between science and theology.
It only seems to you that I am arguing against my beliefs, because as the following shows explicitly (one more time 
), you.fail.to.differentiate.between.science.and.theology, even when not talking about evolution:
It appears you are unable to address, let alone admit, your self-contradiction.
I think @Buzzard is claiming both, and claims the latter is not true because of the former.
I think he would disbelieve (as would @RichardG), for instance, that whales could have evolved from land animals and birds from feathered dinosaurs, based mostly on incredulity (been there, done that, as a ex-ID proponent) and not accepting conclusions based on any intermediary species as well as denying genomics and phylogenetic nested hierarchies, disallowing that God would have used evolution as his creative method. Correct me if i have misstated your position, @Buzzard.
I have never claimed such.
That one I do query
I have never discussed evolution within mammals other than possibly that of humans and apes.
And as no one here will discuss the scope of evolutionary change it is easier to dispute the connections that show the broader differences of structure.IOW the jump from mammal to whale is comparatively simple compared to the jump from reptie to mammal or virtually any basic life form to fish.
Is not part of the argument because TOE does not include God.
I put God into evolution and therefore dispute the godless version. IOW the reverse of the above statement.
It is only @Dale who seems to think you cannot argue evolution and God in the same breath, (He puts God in by his default view of how God works providentially, but claims you need a divine-o-meter to identify Him)
I argue against scientific evolutionary theory where God is excluded because science cannot identify God and therefore cannot include Him in their TOE.
Richard
Get a big syringe and inject him into science wherever you want, it still will be bad theology and poor science – TOE, cosmology, meteorology, whatever. You argue against all science in so doing.
Yes, you do. Why?
Please remind me again why you think the theory of evolution is unique among the sciences in this?
Can you not likewise say that you argue against any scientific theory where God is excluded because science cannot identify God and therefore cannot include Him in their theories.
So. Basically all science. And much beyond science as well. Including biblical interpretation.
3 Likes
… atheists, for example, to whom I was referring.