Welcome Greg to the Forum


(Daniel Ang) #243

The Bible literally describes several instances where God expresses His will by casting lots. See for example Josh 18:6-10 (casting lots to divide land in Canaan) and Acts 1:26 (the selection of Matthias to replace Judas). What might seem random from a human perspective, is not random from God’s.


(Greg) #244

So what is the mechanism of Gods creating that you espouse exactly? When God called for casting lots in these, He literally caused the lot to determine His choice. He did not rely on luck to make His choice. Your argument here is unfounded. And this in no way shape or form warrants humankind to engage in blind luck at a casino for reaping rewards which, since the odds are against, means will takes a long time before a gambler reaps benefit. In fact, we are made in Gods image as workers, creators, innovators for a cause of bringing Him glory and for reaping provision to make a living. What are the implications of this about God if we reflect His nature?

The evolutionary proposals i learn about from many theistic evolutionists associate vast amounts of time to happening upon a beneficial mutation. This is comparable to the gambler, not the worker. The fact that this time factor is necessary suggests to me that blind luck is the vehicle that drives the effort. To suggest that this is of God is utterly wrong. To suggest that God takes on the form of a “mother nature” in a new age sort of way where His essence is vibed through luck and selection of evolution is a recipe for vast apostacy in the church…this is highly constrasting from the character of the God of the Bible.


(George) #245

@Greg

What do you mean exactly? If birds evolved from small dinos… how does finding a bird in the dino age help the YEC viewpoint?


(George) #246

@Greg

Arent you 2 actually in agreement? What SEEMS random to humans is God’s will made manifest.


(George) #247

@Greg

The factor of time is an illusion. God designs and creates all in an instant… whether he uses Special Creation or Evolution.

God gives humanity the illusion of time because we would not understand the Universe without this illusion!


(George) #248

@Greg

How can you write the above quote… and then insist that God could not take as much time as he wanted to create Earth’s life forms?


(George) #249

@Greg

Maybe we should start charging posters $5.00 every time they emphatically state that Evolution has to be:
Godless, or
Random, or
Evil.

Its as though you have no memory of earlier corrections.


(Greg) #250

We are highly NOT in agreement. We are opposites. And this came to mind after my last post: chance in choosing fr a deck of cards incorporates luck of the draw from a deck that is UNCHANGING. the type of evolution that is (really) being espoused by the theistic evolutionist is chancing upon a mutation in an ever changing environment.

Some of this stuff i try to communicate i honestly feel like there are no words to explain because they are so highly contrary to logic that bases our communication. I understand that Dr. Swamidass is not a naturalistic evolutionist. He tells me this. I believe it. In stone. But until he tells me an exacting proposed method by which evolution causes complexity while leaving God in the mix, prepare for a major battle from Christ centered believers who are going to chew on any book he writes that attempts to blend the natural w the supernatural God of the Bible. God is not a concept. He is real. He thinks and feels. He gets angry. He is glad when His church does well. Excuse the pun i borrow from a clint eastwood movie but it is fitting for this effort of trying to fit this God which a highly naturalistic and mainstream view of evolution: “Are you feeling lucky?”


(George) #251

@Greg

We know that God makes DNA. He did so when he made Adam.

He is the master of all the diversely complex genomes.

When he is using Evolution to populate the earth with different kunds of creatures he does so by specifically sequencing the mutations necessary to make a fish a tetrapod… or a arboreal primate into Homo erectus.

What is difficult about this scenario?


(Bill Cole) #252

This reasoning is circular. How do you know he is using evolution? You say we cannot detect God yet you are claiming to know his methods.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #253

What @gbrooks9 is noting is that it appears like common descent. None of the arguments put forward here touch the case for common descent at all. There is an immense amount of evidence for it, even if it is false.


(Bill Cole) #254

There is some evidence for it and some against it in certain transitions. I am not claiming all common descent is false but I think that if science lets go of past paradigms then universal common descent is nowhere as a hypothesis. Yet my university (UCBerkeley) uses it as a working hypothesis.

Science is continually trying and prove it is true but when I look at studies like the one at Bio Logos that looked convincing initially I see a lack of critical analysis that may hurt the claim.

For instance when the study shows that mutations are following a pattern that looks like random change that is convincing however why weren’t known mutations purged form the data like mis matches such as AC or TG? Mutations like these will be most prevalent and exaggerate the pattern. Are we really being objective?


#255

UCD is not demonstrated at this time. However, common descent certainly seems mostly valid for eukaryotes. Many deep bacterial lineages seem related by common descent as well. But whether we can track the tree of life to one branch is still up for grabs. There appears to be a degree of horizontal transfer that calls that into question.


(Greg) #256

What is wrong is you are telling me with authority what God did witout the type of evolution you are seemingly standing upon really has not gotten past the "educated guess " level of the scientific method. Tell me how science has truly demonstrated in a lab proof that a irreducibly complex bio machine forms from something wholely different? We see cells adapting, but never bio machines forming. I cannot think of anything more unachievable by chance and selection.

Projecting what God did in creation through the eyes of science is infinately different than predicting what part of the Carolinas hurricane florence is gonna hit. Right? Your authoritarian tone about what God did is not becomming.


(Greg) #257

Dear Sir. So i lean towards a young earth stance myself. It seems i may be the only one who leans this way in the regular discourse on this site. It also seems plain that i have been put up as a spectacle of pseudo science because i choose to place more faith in a God who is capable of creating the world in a week a couple of thousand years ago when He created Adam and Eve, “The mother of all of the living” than i do in nature creating it over millions of years.

I recognize that most represented here in this website totally sneer at me for such an unintelligent stance in their view. I am totally ok with that! I understand. I get it. Im a big boy. We are good. There are brillliant scientists who have done scientific research that is so contrary to a young earth position and the feeling in their hearts must be that these folks are naive.

But when we point our finger at folks like this, there are three fingers pointing back. The very ones who discredit a young earth because it is “unscientific” are many times the same ones who fail to recognize that there is a very real philosophy at work in their own endeavors which cause them to interpret ALL of our existence largely through the lense of naturalistic goggles. The obvious example is natural evolution. On one hand the old earth evolutionist suggests that the young earther should come to a point of considering changing their theology to be more fitting with scientific observation. But on the other hand, the old earth evolutionist who struggles to define a methodology for nature via mutation and selection to build irreducibly complex bio machines through evolution (which number in billions and billions) should also be willing to rewrite their naturalistic theology that makes no sense statistically to fit a more supernatural version.

So when i hear an evolutionist suggest to me to alter my theology to be more fitting of science, i would ask them if perhaps they take the plank out of their own eye of a bent on naturalism so as to see clearly in order to take the splinter out of mine.

Mainstream science as it is defined today is NOT OBJECTIVE as many in this very thread want you to believe. Mainstream science is consummed with the BELIEF that their observations of the past are in accord to what they see in nature in real time in the present. The high horse that many scientists have today is that they feel that even an old earth brand of Intelligent Design is not even objective because it believes design is detectable while the mainstream scientist is objectively pursuing truth. I disagree because intelligent design (which i am very much an advocate of) deals very seriously with the power of presumptions that the mainstream seemingly ignores-the main one being that truth about our existence can be traced through naturalistic lenses.

In closing, i will give a very quick scenario to explain: lets suggest for argument that it was 100% fact that God by a miracle created a wolf by speaking it into existence with genetic capabilities built within that wolf to adapt into all of the breeds we see today. And adapt it did! Hyenas, coyotes, foxes, and dog types which are extinct today. Remember, for this case study, we are considerinng this as factual. The scientist that observes the world through the belief that all things can be determined in the past the way nature functions today will see the various dog breeds in fossils and ones still alive and will always tend towards interpreting these as proof of their evolution from one to another and never come close to the truth about their existence that God created the wolf with adaptation traits. You see, the scientist that boasts of his objectivity was indeed not very objective at all. He chose the subjective path that assumes that God creates via the power of the sun over millions of years necessary for evolution to do its thing and missed truth as displayed as a result. And this miss is not just a slight miss. The arrow went 10 feet over the target and into the woods. So for this, all of those scientists sneering at guys like me from atop their high horse need a little humility. There is a verse that is profoundly fitting in this in regards to the power of presumption: pr 14:12 “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.” I think some of the mainstream guys need to glean the wisdom found in good ID groups. These guys specialize in the power of presumption that this verse points to which in all should humble those scientists who think they are objective where they are not very much at all.


Is All YEC Really Pseudoscience?
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #258

@greg, we are not asking you change your theology. We have, in fact, shown how your theology could be compatible with evolutionary science.

False. There is, at least, @Robert_Byers, @pnelson, and @J.E.S too.

Please stop just repeating canned answers and arguments and engage with us. We are different than you’ve been told.


(Greg) #259

That makes no sense. How would the theology of young earth creationism be compatible w evolution? I challenged you to prove to me that you had not the same goals as biologos towards convincing others towards an evolutionary worldview, and you suggested that the goal of this website was purely to, in peace, have all sides of the creationist equation hash out the details. Now you suggest in black and white that “we” display the potential to get in line with an evolutionary worldview. Did you read the prior post of mine at all? Is there anything i can suggest to you that will cause you to truly do what this website was supposedly intended to do: HUMBLY discuss options towards the end of considering how perhaps our presumptions perhaps are blinding us from truth?

Now i realize as i have aways that the young earth position is not at all fitting with mainstream science and that can be a bit disheartening bc i am just a man who wants to interpret everything in a natural a +b = c sort of way . But i am finding that interacting thru this website, exactly as i did when i was interacting w folks thru biologos, a huge zeal as if by the Spirit of the Living God towards a view that seems illogical in the lenses of the natural which my body and mind have been subjected to for 50 yrs, but with the Living Supernatural God in the equation a completely eligible position to have. I sense a bit of manipulation and deceit going on to sell a highly theologically suspect evolutionary position and testing those spirits makes me want to run the other direction. Sorry to be blunt. I wish i could buy you lunch and pray about and discuss these serious issues face to face. Every bone in my body senses that i understand why a scientist subject to the whims of the mainstream thinks the way you do, but that you are, sorry again to be blunt, wrong.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #260

If you engaged in a real conversation you would find out. Wouldn’t that be great if the theology you are reading from Scripture could fit with mainstream science?

I do not hold an evolutionary worldview, and I would appreciate if you would stop accusing me of this.


(Greg) #261

You say this now:

But 10 mins ago you said this:

What gives sir? You might be tired my friend. If i may challenge you to read the longer post of mine and address it in a way that you understand what i suggest. You may not be interested as you may have an agenda that is completely contrary…this is what i would love for you to address:


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #262

What gives is that you misunderstand evolutionary science. So your understanding of science has to give, but not necessarily your theology.

Keep in mind evolutionary science is not a worldview. It is just a partial account of origins. My worldview is defined by Scripture and by Jesus, not evolution.