Mass and energy are the same thing, in the sense that one can be turned into the other, but they can never be made to just disappear. Radioactive decay always turns mass into energy; that is light and heat. You cannot have decay without heat because that would be turning mass into nothing. If you go outside and feel the sun’s warmth, that was once mass.
Right now, the interior of the Earth contains enough radioactivity to sustain the molten rock constituting the mantle. If that radioactivity is intensified times billions, the heat would immediately transform molten to vaporous material with explosive effect. That is certain. Scientists could not have built nuclear weapons and power stations if they did not understand the physics.
Interesting statement, and one that I think quite a few share, most prominent of which is Todd Wood, who is oddly enough vilified by AIG, and friends with most of the rest of the Christian world, regardless of creationist position. Also, that statement might also include many of the ID camp.
The problem I find personally with that position, is that it messes with how I understand God as being truth and light, holy and sinless. But if it doesn’t bother you in that way, certainly feel it is a faithful position to hold.
@LeoGreer may not be familiar with this verse that YECs either don’t know, ignore or redact , and “make God a liar” (to repeat their frequent accusing refrain against others) because they require such bizarre temporary violations of said laws to fit their unfounded distortions of reality:
This is what the LORD says: If I have not established my covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth …
“…the different versions of evolutionary theory…”
Darwin’s lack of data (DNA for instance) allowed later contributors to rephrase and extend his theory of natural selection. No other “different versions” have any standing, other than uninformed guesswork by people with a need to contest matters of actual fact.
Forgive this blunt reply, but when addressing matters that science has explored for multiple lifetimes, nothing that ignores that exploration can contest it.
That proverbs passage doesn’t have to be interpreted as supporting control of all events by God. I found this alternate take on the verse compelling… (its a youtube video).
St. Augustine is here referring to natural phenomena that “can be known with the greatest certainty”. That excludes (a) the history of life on earth and (b) the process that produced the history of life on earth, which cannot be known with the greatest certainty.
Re (a), the history of life on earth cannot be known with the greatest certainty, since all we have are a relatively few “snapshots” of that history in the form of fossils.
Re (b), the process that produced the history of life on earth cannot be known with the greatest certainty, since no one can prove that any theory of evolution is an accurate reflection of the truth.
We also have genomics – nested hierarchies are here to stay, refuting you.
We also have genomics – nested hierarchies are here to stay, refuting you. Absolutely. You know, like the ‘theory’ of gravity? (Although more than that, say people who know.)
Well, I am not a ‘theistic determinist’ nor a ‘true Calvinist’ as he uses the terms: he does not mention God’s relationship to time one single time and always uses ‘pre-‘ prefixes without any qualifiers whatsoever, binding God into our sequential time box as is only par for these discussions. If you accept the reality of God’s providential interventions into the lives of his children as I hope you do.
I also hope you can recognize the myriad precursor (ooh, a ‘pre-‘ word ; - )… the myriad precursor events to ‘set them up’ and orchestrate their playing out just the way they do or did… without violating anyone’s free will. (We could talk about what it took to win those ‘five lotteries’ the way Maggie did.) So we need to recognize that there is something ‘distinctly unusual’ about God’s relationship to time and place and timing and placing that time-based language with no qualifiers totally ignores – as he did. But if I have to err (not that I am), I will err on the side of God’s sovereignty as against our vaunted and prideful free will (or at least some opinions regarding it).
Yes, I do believe that God can providentially intervene in certain events if he wishes to do so. My only point was that one can’t use that verse in Proverbs as a “proof text” for an assertion that every event is fully determined by God.
You can chant that mantra until the cows come home, but it won’t turn the theory of evolution (ie, the history of life on earth is the result of known biological mechanisms) into a fact.
Abiogenesis science is a complete waste of time. It’s just another atheism-inspired attempt to explain divine creation away with puny science - the same game that produced the theory of evolution.
Don’t make me laugh … the only “groundbreaking work” abiogenesis scientists could ever hope to achieve is to produce a viable organism from inanimate matter. Anything less than that (impossibility) is just dreamers blowing smoke.
He did not successfully make that point because he did not address God’s relationship to time. I can use that verse as a proof text to assert that he is fully sovereign over things we call random… without breaking any of the laws of nature. He is also sovereign over events without violating anyone’s free will, even Judas’.
Why should it bother me in any way? No one will ever prove that the theory of evolution is the truth, so I don’t accept it as the truth.
Besides that, as far as scientific theories go, I think ToE is left wanting and is seriously overrated … but it’s the best explanation that puny humans can come up with.
Even if ToE is the truth, no one can ever know it’s the truth, bcoz it can’t be proven so.
No problem; I’ve been on the receiving end of blunter. But I still maintain that it is useful to maintain the distinction between fact and theory.
Aristotle’s theory that all bodies move to their natural place held for multiple lifetimes, which was at least consistent with the fact that things fall down. Newton’s theory of gravity was uncontested for multiple lifetimes, but although the motions of apples and the moon agreed, Newton’s theory also turned out wrong. Einstein’s theory has been validated by innumerable factual measurements, but most physicists think it is not complete or fundamental.
Because I maintain a distinction between theory facts and the explanatory framework of a theory, I think it is a category error to refer to the ToE as a fact. Rather, i consider the ToE to be true. That may sound like a distinction without a difference, but I think of facts as inputs and evaluation as true as an output.
, and “make God a liar” (to repeat their frequent accusing refrain against others) because they require such bizarre temporary violations of said laws to fit their unfounded distortions of reality: