I think that what’s intended is “We can’t measure the difference.”
1 Like
That is not a description of how scientists use “random”, that is a description of how laypeople use “random”.
Just like every single other discipline! If I say something about a “field” being large, then it requires knowing whether this statement is about geology, one of several different suboptions within physics, sports, a meta-statement about academic disciplines, or something else to know what that means.
Thinking differently is fine, but you keep projecting Pelagian and open theist beliefs on everyone else, and/or failing to see that the fact that someone does not hold to those removes problems with something that they have said.
Well, for one, it’s a proverb rather than a Psalm; but it would seem to be intended as generally-applicable wisdom. Us?
Yes.
I claim that understanding the context is important, not that I can dismiss passages because I don’t like them.
???
Exactly, it says absolutely nothing about God’s involvement or the presence of God’s image.
Unmeasurably governing it.
So what? It’s a description of a pattern, not a transcendent rule. If God causes natural selection, then it wouldn’t change any observations or measurements of it.
How many times are you going to repeat committing a false dichotomy by claiming that randomness and God are mutually exclusive, or making a category error by implying that science can say anything whatsoever about God’s involvement?
Why would God need to override something that He causes anyway?
2 Likes
Except there can be factors that emerge that were not predictable,.
Ever heard of the Butterfly effect? Saturation point? Sun radiation variables?
Where does life and choice and freedom fit into this wonderful watch of yours?
Because it is implausible.
Okay, keep you blindness. I can’t convince you otherwise.
Mathematics! Are you kidding? The probabilities are off the scale!
You crease me up!
Still Cardassians and Silurians are just fictional,
Richard
So does every field where there’s expertise involved, from auto mechanics to windsurfing.
False. Why you keep making this erroneous claim in the face of repeated corrections on both logical and scientific bases is baffling. All that ToE claims is that we can’t measure for God so there’s no point trying.
If someone’s kids are in school and thus are not sitting in their parents’ SUV, does that make them “excluded” from the SUV?
Or perhaps more related . . . if there is some some chromium in a bag of fertilizer but that is not listed, does it mean that chromium has been “excluded”? or does it just mean it is present in levels below detection?
That’s just bad theology. God can use any means He chooses. The only question is which means He has chosen, and at the moment it appears to be evolution.
False dichotomy. If it is about Nature, then by definition it is about God (cf. Colossians 1).
1 Like
This is starting to sound like someone complaining that they can’t use their BMW owner’s manual for reference when repairing a Bugatti – and louldy declaiming that the guy who wants to use the Bugatti owner’s manual isn’t being fair.
Here’s an exercise – what word do these have in common:
paper, mountain, vapor, rabbit, money, campaign, memory.
Exactly – which is why they are not predictable.
Same place it is in where a river flows or a snowflake falls: all things are bounded by the physical parameters of the universe.
Really? Tell me, when did you get multiple PhDs in the relevant fields? I only ask because those authors had four PhDs between them.
No blindness at all. The problem, as J. B. Phillips once put it, is that your God is too small.
Infinite series can converge, you know.
1 Like
Science is basically unable to distinguish between deistic, atheistic, or theistic scenarios. This does not make the science atheistic or deistic. The difference will be primarily in the observer rather than in the science. Of course, the same is true of physical activities generally. A mechanic who claims to be biblical because he “fixes” everything by anointing it with oil and claiming that it is your fault for not having faith if your car still doesn’t work is not a good mechanic.
The Bible does give good reason to expect science to work, given God’s sovereignty and consistency, whereas atheism has to simply accept the empirical fact that it does work pretty well.
Part of the point of a miracle is that it is an unusual event and we ought therefore to notice and see what’s going on. “Hey, that bush is on fire but it’s not burning away!”
4 Likes
Your logic, not universal.
Scientific? You must see the paradox in your statement.
False analogy. It has no relevance. (But it illustrates your fallacy)
Still false.
You cannot compare theory or philosophy tp physical composition or content.
All you are proving is that you do not understand my view.
It has nothing to do with Theology1.
ToE is based on fluke! That is the whole driving force!
There is no guidance, so how can God be guiding it!
(Invisibly is nt a valid respponse. it changes the whole theory)
And you are assuming that you have identified Him with a theory that cannot see Him!
Irrelevant. You are claiming to see God in action when the action denies His existence.
I am guessing that you mean v16.
An statement of faith by Paul. it neither proves or disproves the relevance of ToE… You are claiming ToE is God’s work, not Scripture. You are claiming the truth of ToE not Scripture. You cannot validate ToE with Scripture. Scripture claims God made us from dust, not a Reptile or even an Ape!
You have chosen to ignore Scripture while dealing with science. You have made that bed. Lie in it,
Richard
And says nothing about HOW God made us. Just like
makes no mention of how the light is generated (nuclear fusion) or what causes the the sun and moon to move (basic physics). While you may not like the the violence in the TOE remember people also die from sun exposure and falls due to gravity. Also, while the TOE says nothing for or against God being involved we can be assured, based on Scripture, that He was. Again, HOW He was involved we aren’t told and is something science cannot address.
2 Likes
It doesn’t change the whole theory. Romanes addressed this quite well in his essay published in 1882.
3 Likes
Well recited.
You believe that implicitly of course. Wouldn’t do to question science, especially from a religious point of view.
Make up your ind whether there is any realism in Genesis 1 or not. That would clarify things.
Thn decide whether you see God in the mechanisms of ToE.
Does God bless the mighty? Does He trample on the weak or ill equipped? Did He create man to a specific image?
If You think ToE matches the nature of God, as Paul declares, you would reject ToE.
Richard
Doesn’t make it any less true.
Science doesn’t question religion just as religion doesn’t question science. Not to say some people don’t use science to bash religion just as some people use religion to bash science. Neither is correct.
The realism is in the message and the message is not about how God created.
The TOE says nothing about the nature of God. Nature is messy. There is death and destruction in abundance. So what do you take out of nature that indicates God’s nature. And general revelation doesn’t provide a complete picture God. If it did we wouldn’t need special revelation.
3 Likes
Yep. God is faithful, and follows His own principles.
No such thing.
When you’re in a corner, you personalize. It’s not a good look.
Logic is universal. Go read Aristotle.
There’s no paradox – when you are corrected on science, you whine about not being understood; that’s not a defense. And when you are corrected on logic, you attack people for insulting you.
Most people get over this behavior in middle school.
I understand your view quite well: you hold that logic is unnecessary, that your subjective feelings trump reason and evidence, and that you think whining about being a victim somehow proves points.
No, it isn’t. Whining that it is when you’ve been shown otherwise repeatedly is just childish.
There’s no assuming; I see Him in a theory that points to His glory.
Are you capable of learning? The “action” you refer to isn’t capable of denying His existence, any more than are geology or chemistry or meteorology – if ToE denies God, so do they. Whine all you want, but that is the truth.
You are making a false dichotomy, confusing the agent with the instruments.
Scripture doesn’t say how God made us from dust. We know He uses means, since scripture says we are all made of dust.
Stop with the literalistic arguments already.
Pretty amazing statement from someone who denies the authority of both scripture and science by imposing his own metaphysics and incredulity on them!
I maintain that nothing in scripture can be overridden by science.
Exactly – Richard’s God is so small He can’t survive not being involved in every detail rather than just being Author of the process.
1 Like
He just “questioned science” – he noted what it cannot do.
You seem to think that science claims to be omniscient. You refuse to see that you are turning it into an idol by ascribing power it does not claim.
The Psalmist tells us to ascribe power to Yahweh, not to science or any other idol.
No – that is your emotional response, not a rational analysis. ToE matches the nature of God just as much as do chemistry, physics, geology, and meteorology; all of those are His work and result in death and misery. You cannot reject ToE without rejecting gravity and solar radiation and hurricanes.
Cling to your false dichotomy all you want, but it just makes Christians look foolish.
Well said!
Just read Genesis like an ancient Israelite and throw away the YEC silliness and things make sense.
2 Likes