That’s part of the problem – it is not a red herring and it shows where your thinking is inconsistent, as in wrong. God interacts/intervenes using exactly the same ‘mechanism’ and agency in meteorology and vulcanology as he does in biology. Btw, that is theology and not science.
There is no scientific mechanism for God’s intervention because we do not have a divinometer to detect it, as @St.Roymond has said now these many times. You call the ‘VFB’ and the ‘VFA’ something we’re hiding behind, but they are just shorthand for the lateral, scientific physical realm and the ‘vertical’ theological, spiritual and philosophical, metaphysical realm. We are successfully hiding, I guess, because you cannot see that and are blind to it, for some inexplicable reason.
I don’t know what Richard is arguing except that “evolution, as taught” is not true, but his arguments are full of non sequiturs and contradictions, like somehow God behaves differently with respect to meteorology than he does biology, that somehow the natural laws that God has instituted are different between them.
Oh, I get it … Jesus never raised those three people mentioned in the Gospels from physical death … just as God never raised Jesus himself from physical death … and just as none of us will be raised from physical death.
Fascinating. I wonder why no one has thought of this before …
I really have been wasting my time for the last three months or more.
You have never even tried to understand me. You have just rebuttled, counter-argued and asserted. In one eye, counter it, out the other. No comprehension inbetween.
just to make you aware that God’s will is a natural force, just not a physical one
if you see survival fitness as the ability to love thy neighbour, e.g. to contribute to creation at the elimination of the selfish that would drain the system, you would see it to execute the word of God
no, it helps to distinguish between what is natural and what is physical in our use of language to prevent confusion with unnatural and normality and abnormality
I understand sin in the fall to be the separation from being part of God, e.g. the pure execution of his will / under his authority by becoming your own authority in deriving morals by yourself. Thus my comment about the fall representing a poetic description of puberty,
Knowing - from at least six examples in the Gospels - that God can create a human being from inanimate matter in an instant, it would be logically inconsistent in the extreme to then suppose that humans beings came into existence in some fashion contrary to what is described in Genesis 2:7 - ie, God creating a human being from inanimate matter in an instant.
Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that whoever came up with the theory that humans evolved naturally from some brute animal, must have been ignorant of, or didn’t believe, the Gospels.
Psalm 104 has God doing things in their seasons … 139 speaks of us being knit together in our mother’s womb. No mention in any of those spots about how it would be ‘unreasonable’ for God to take his time doing any of these things. Or how it would be beneath Him if he didn’t do it all in an instant.
Only if the teaching allows for dissension. That is, not taught as defacto.
God id not irrelevant to me, only TOE.
The whole point is that TOE cannot, by definition include God. If it is proved to be self sufficient then God is proven to be unnecessary. And, obviously , I do not believe that to be the case.
The thread is about whether evolution ought to be taught. You certainly appear to come down on the side of NO.
You claimed teaching it is harmful. Not something Christians would want to be promoted. That it’s wrong to teach it. Because, in your words, “the current teaching of Evolution does not include any reference to God.”
