You seem to delight in your own rules of syntax.
You and i agreed that evolution would appear no different if God guided it without miracles.
Then i explained that i particularly endorse the version WITH miracles.
But it still requires vast knowledge to know what is super-natural vs. What is natural-but-amazing!
Why is it important?
If there WERE true miracles by God (or anyone else) wouldnât these miracles be explainable by non-natural processes?
Inconsistancy is what i would expect from historians looking for explanations about the existence of complex from fossil fragments, and our surface understanding of genetics. How many times i have cringed over the years when the elite called darwinism not a guess, not a hypothesis and even beyond theory to scientific factâŚnow, judging by hundreds of scientists at the risk of their career, signing off an agreement that darwinianisn is dead seems to indicate that thousands more probably secretly agree.
I agree that it is speculative to say God planted mutations to keep the evolution ball rollingâŚand if one believes in God of the incredible creative powers to be able to create the cosmos, the most logical solution to the universe having a beginning, i somehow find myself comparing this suggestion about God only toying w mutations (in an admitted disjunctioned backward way) to the speculation by congresswoman Cortez about spending the multi billion dollar tax breaks that were going to Amazon had they settled in NY on something else now that they have removed themselves from consideration.
Not quite. Iâm not sure what you mean by âwithout miraclesâ here. Iâd say that divine intervention is a miracle, even if it canât be distinguished from a natural event. So âGod guided it without miraclesâ is self-contradictory.
Robert Byers, Jr.?
What do u mean?
I found a certain general similarity of theme, diction, and incoherence. But I could have gone with Donald Trump, Jr., were the office not already occupied.
@Patrick, I believe you just defined these âmiraclesâ! They are non-natural⌠but besides that, they may well be otherwise completely unexplainable.
Sometimes I prefer the phrase, âsuper-naturalâ ⌠as opposed to ânaturalâ. Because a providential arrival of fish to starving islanders may well be a ânaturalâ event, but still a âmiraculous signâ! ! ! - - the original intention of the word miracle.
I define miracles as made up explanations for events that some people are too lazy to accept as real ordinary events or too narcissistic to realize that they are make-up embellished events.
I admitted the disjunction in the comparison. Let me put this way: i started a chemistry major in college then ultimately graduated in a business degree. While taking business courses, i realize now that i was being taught some relatively naive, idealistic speculations on how economics works from a semi-socialistic worldview. On paper, the model looked tremendous and imtellligent sounding. But soon i found myself in the business world and learned very quickly that in a real world, the intellingent sounding principles spoken of by intelligencia actually dont work in the real world! In fact, a successful economic system in the real world consists of a bunch of boys w a country boy common sense who had the sense enough to see a need for a product and learned that w some hard work and honesty for gaining trust, making or buying that product or service for X and selling it for X + over and over makes a living. And competition w others in this process brings innovation. Economics 101 by professors never involved in business produce luny theories in space that produce the ridiculous in things like what AOC said about âtaking the money that would have been given to AmazonâŚâ clueless.
I find it no different in the world of science to do with naturalism. Several hundred yrs ago a man, depressed over the loss of his child (justifiably) sees adaptation in finches on galapagos is and speculates that there could be a feasible model where God was void in the involvement of this (as He was void in answering his prayers for his daughterâŚthe suggestion about this parallel is mine and mine alone until i see proof) So Darwin furthered the idea that the natural is the cause of all complex life. This generated the world of intelligencia to develop models on paper that were fitting of the ideals of the materialistic worldview subjectively expanded by darwin. On paper, these views look intelligent and anyone can add all kinds of fancy language and fit unrelated research to make them appear intelligent. Now, thanks to ID, there is becomming a wave of scientists who are taking their heads out of the sand and are declaring that what looks good on paper does not work in the real world! I am sure this will generate new naturalistic evolutionary approaches to explaining existence, but i have a hunch that these will also be put to rest.
I see the logic of adaptation of animals that already have a nervous system, circulation system, reproductive system and designed adaptation qualities in place. I see no logic at all that qualities like eyesight where naturalism is charged w the duty of arousing by chance bony eye socket mutations along with muscle mutations along with nervous system mutations all the while the eye was being constructed. You say, but it occurred slowly. Common sense suggests that you give enough time to a useless part in the production (even of something of great value in the end) is going to be removed from consideration and removed fr the population. We see this in cave dwelling fish who lose eyesight! Here they once had the fully developed eye and lose it via mutation because the need was not there⌠so how does one explain a completely useless part of an eye remaining in existence while waiting on all the rest of the assembly to catch up? Sense has it that mutation takes this down and not up. Sexual reproduction is even more difficult to explain. You can give intelligent sounding theories like my economics profâŚbut can you demonstrate how it works in the real world? Behe is wisely figuring that they dont.
So for those who choose to not believe in God like Darwin, i understand your desire to hang tight to Darwin or other naturalistic theories. I completely understand! What i dont understand is how one explains the existence of mass energy in the first place. And for those of us who subscribe to a view that God created mass energy, why have you been so in love w Darwin through your science careers when this is running contrary to every principle espoused by a great Cause outside of the natural creating mass energy? So now we are going to give God a little shout out of support by giving Him the responibilities of handling the manipulation of couple of mutations?? Sounds in a odd way like the likes of congress woman AOC in response to Amazon pulling out of NY.
My position is that God is 100% in charge of my genetic content⌠in the very same way he would be when he created Adam out of dustâŚ
or Eve out of a rib.
If you canât even describe my position correctly, you will never understand it.
To be fair, if you canât even describe your position coherently, nobody will ever understand it.
Where, anywhere, would @scd come up with the idea that my position is that âGod chose just a fewâ mutations for any given species?
I believe the clarity with which I have expressed 100% involvement in Evolution, from mutations to common descent, is unambiguous.
And that the desire to edit my position into relative insignificance is unbecoming of anyone who participates in a discussion group like this one.
Thankyou George for your input. You prove to me that John Harshman is exactly right: there are going to be many inconsistent and various points of view on the history of our existence. Yours is a type that is fitting if your unitarian, universalistic philosophy. This proves to me the main point that i get to: none of us are going to truly figure this out via our observations or feelings. We can make hypotheses for sure. And it will be fun for some of us to explore. But if we are truly objectively in process of desiring truth of our existence, then dont rule out intelligence, and stop the self deceptive language like âdarwinism is factâ
I have logically deduced that Something outside of the natural is the best explanation of the beginnings of mass energy. I have logically deduced that this Something must be pretty incredible to have accomplished this. I therefore have deduced if the above is true, that that Something must know how He did things. And most important for us, i have logically deduced that there is quite a bit of arrogance in any of us as His creation to speak for Him as if we know with stuff like,âyeah- natural evolution is the MAN and God dabbled with mutations.â In fact, it would be more logical to lean towards the possibility that perhaps that Something communicated how He accomplished this than to rely on our feelings.
So you folks call me stupid for having a âyecâ to describe my stance. Yeah- i see the evidence that seems to picture the universe as ancient, but im at least humble enough to admit that i was not there when the âSomethingâ i refer to as the God of Scripture, created all of this. He was there and He has seemed to have communicated via miraculous and prophetic events as described in these Scriptures His ways And history shows that when He gave a glimpse of His glory to people, they were knocked to their knees in humilityâŚso i will place my hand over my mouth about trying to explain His ways of creating based on the psychobabbling feeling of the day because God is God, and i am just a feabile minded country boy whose cognitive abilities compared to His are representative of the mear dot of land mass the earth that i stand upon takes up compared to the universe.
This overarching picture i provide makes sense of a worldview that says that the sin that daily shows how humankind is tearing itself apart and that separates us from the very God who created us can only be accomplished by God Himself. That worldview is so astoundingly against every single humanistic tendency that profits so greatly in all of the religions and self help books that litter our bookstores! That is why i believe that it must be not of this world and true.
First, that was Greg, though I can sympathize with your confusion. Second, he probably took it from the veritable forest of mutually contradictory statements you have made. If he has no idea what you meant, thatâs not wholly his fault.
Your belief is wrong. I certainly donât know what you mean, and Iâm not sure that anyone does.
If there is anyone reading this who can explain what George means, please weigh in now, because George apparently canât.
I think @gbrooks9 is just flamboyant in putting forward the same guided evolution scenario we have discussed @John_Harshman. You want him to come with scientific precision, but he is not a scientist. He is more of a front man.
I could envision a better sort of interaction between us all on this. Donât expect from him what he canât give. Help him fill in the details and he will be your best friend.
What sentence do you think @John_Harshman is looking for?
God decides it all, at 100%. Whatâs there left hanging in the balance?
God decides the mutations.
God decides the ecological niche of where the creatures live.
God decides the speciation events.
God decides how common descent will flow.
What exactly is left to discuss?
@gbrooks9 instead of pointless arguments, just point people here next time: Would God's Guidance Be DNA-Detectable?.
Bookmark it and say that this is what you mean. Realize that people want details, and this is legitimate. Iâve don the hard work for you. Just point them there.
Are you blaming God for all the defects and mutations that you have? @NLENTS has a great book on the subject. And yes, the design of our sinuses was very bad indeed.
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Errors-Panorama-Glitches-Pointless/dp/1328974693