Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

You AREN'T a creationist????

I'm a Christian. And yes, I recognize that some Christians are creationists. But not most of us. Creationism is to creation, what legalism is to legal. The term has been taken over by those who don't accept the way He creates new taxa.

(I realize I'm being pedantic here, but you've unbelievers watching, so this is pedantically important, you need to be, at times, on the 'our' side whether you disagree about other things.

You have a point. But I doubt if anyone here is unclear on the distinction between "creationist" and "Christian."

In a Venn Diagram, "Christian" and "creationist" slightly intersect. You're at that intersection. I'm not. But we're both in the "Christian" section.

IOW, you have to argue 'in camp' else you are arguing out of it. Be careful where you make your bed and lie down when it comes to the Creator of the universe. This part is important.

From what I see here and elsewhere, it's easier to slide out of that intersection to merely "creationist, not Christian" for some, creationism has replaced God. I don't think you, personally are in much danger of that, but many are.

Barbarian observes:
So, for example, randomly dropping toothpicks on a piece of lined paper could never improve information about pi?
https://ogden.eu/pi/

Turns out, it does. The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

No, it really doesn't.

Remember what "information" actually means. It's mathematically shown to be exactly what you see here.

And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.

We do indeed find patterns mathematically, but he was talking about random chance.

Do you doubt that God can use contingency for His purposes?

It has to EITHER be God OR no God when creating. Do you for instance, believe Colossians 1:17?

Do you agree that this confirms Genesis 1:1? It's the same message, different words, with one important added idea; God remains itimately connected to every particle of creastion. It's a rejection of deism.

Mathematical statistics and observation aren't the same as random chance.

"Random chance" wouldn't produce a directed result. And yet, this simple demonstration of order in His creation gives you an increasingly accurate estimate of pi.

This pi observation is merely a statistic probability that coincides with pi.

It's not a coincidence. If this were not true, physics would be wildly different, and we wouldn't be here.

No creationist contests that God made an ordered universe. In fact, it wouldn't be 'random' at all. Just the opposite: part of an ordered and well maintained universe. If you agree on that, then a lot of evolution/creation disagreement can be put to rest by the simple agreement and observation. It'd be totally different, for example, to say that animals 'change' according to laws/guidelines of a well-ordered universe, than saying "random non-ordered unguided 'beneficial' mutation."

Here's what you're missing:

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency
St. Thomas Aquinas Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1

 

[Stripe]

"Random chance" wouldn't produce a directed result. And yet, this simple demonstration of order in His creation gives you an increasingly accurate estimate of pi.

You understand neither maths nor evolutionary theory.

It's not random chance at play. The experiment is carefully constructed to produce the desired effect. Try making random changes to the parallel lines or the lengths of the sticks and see how the accuracy to pi improves oh wait you won't because you hate proper correction.

 

[Lon]

Barbarian observes:
The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

I'm a Christian. And yes, I recognize that some Christians are creationists. But not most of us. Creationism is to creation, what legalism is to legal. The term has been taken over by those who don't accept the way He creates new taxa.



You have a point. But I doubt if anyone here is unclear on the distinction between "creationist" and "Christian."

Incorrect. As you believe God 'created' the universe, you are a creationist arguing within camp. You conflate your own problems on TOL. I realize you don't care much about those accusations, but you should. You are NOT to be making your brother/sister to stumble. Such causes a belief, by your own work and hands, that you are not a believer. In fact, you believe in Christ as Savior, and that He created the universe.

In a Venn Diagram, "Christian" and "creationist" slightly intersect. You're at that intersection. I'm not. But we're both in the "Christian" section.

Incorrect. You are labeling 'Creationist' as YEC etc. This is an incorrect line in your diagram. Change it to be correct. You shouldn't be doing TOL discussion simply for entertainment, but for actual meaning and purpose AND you need to be paying attention to Paul's writings when going through these discussions. We are responsible for all our careless or uncaring words. Do better.

From what I see here and elsewhere, it's easier to slide out of that intersection to merely "creationist, not Christian" for some, creationism has replaced God. I don't think you, personally are in much danger of that, but many are.

Barbarian observes:
So, for example, randomly dropping toothpicks on a piece of lined paper could never improve information about pi?
https://ogden.eu/pi/

Turns out, it does. The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.



Remember what "information" actually means. It's mathematically shown to be exactly what you see here.

And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.

I can do them too. Rather, it is because there is order in the universe. You have to realize YOU are against randomized evolution. Why not join rather than split hairs all of the time? You believe a Creator made the universe. There are unbelievers in the science community that vigorously argue with you on this point. Why not make this admission? How far removed are you from those in thread?

Do you doubt that God can use contingency for His purposes?

You are using "contingency" as if the universe is in any other hands but God's. Contingency means 'in another's hands.' The difficulty is if you mean contingent "by/in God's hands" or if you mean "Can God allow another to have control over the universe and its laws?" When Thomas Aquinas uses the word, he means "By God's hand." He argues this, in context, saying that what God purposes cannot but happen, by His purpose, by His hand (contingency).

The problem every Christian has, in any field, especially science is he has to understand that we live in a space that is subjected to the curse AND was originally not designed that way. Romans 8:20 It makes particularly, the Christian's science job more complicated than one who is ignorant of scriptures.

Do you agree that this confirms Genesis 1:1? It's the same message, different words, with one important added idea; God remains itimately connected to every particle of creastion. It's a rejection of deism.

Yes, you are arguing 'for' creation. "Evolutionists" wouldn't accept your view of this term by such language. It is important that Christians recognize that they mean something different than the standard ideas of Darwinism and evolution and related terms. Scientists and educators, ignorant of God and His hand in the universe, state terms and give descriptions void of understanding and often against Him. Below, you argue well for an ordered universe completely in God's hands.

"Random chance" wouldn't produce a directed result. And yet, this simple demonstration of order in His creation gives you an increasingly accurate estimate of pi.

Yes. Argue like this in thread. Sometimes you create a controversy simply by not being more careful. You are not for random chance/chaos in creation (you DO believe in creation, thus a 'creationist'). Try not to be against other Christians on problem definitions

It's not a coincidence. If this were not true, physics would be wildly different, and we wouldn't be here.

Well, you are arguing for a purposeful creation order at that point. Mostly, the term 'evolution' comes with an autonomous tenor that you frankly, don't believe. My contention is your comparison: It is simply a coincidence (coincides) with an ordered universe, which you too are arguing FOR.

Here's what you're missing:

:nono: Not missing it at all. I'm saying your argument does not support the term or most people's idea of 'evolution.' Those Aquinas' quote confirms this...

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency
St. Thomas Aquinas Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1

"Contingency" means 'in Another's control. Not random chance. Aquinas was arguing FOR 1 Colossians 1:16-20

 

[chair]

Try thinking.

You can't manufacture matches by lighting one and burning down a forest.

There is more information in a match than there is in a forest fire.

Try reading. I wasn't talking about information. I was reponding to this:

... The theory of evolution is an anomaly to every other part of scientific observation where the effect is never greater than the cause, except in evolutionary theory.

The effect of lighting a match, i.e. the forest fire, is much greater than the cause. i.e. the match being lit.

 

[ok doser]

From what I see here and elsewhere, it's easier to slide out of that intersection to merely "creationist, not Christian" for some, creationism has replaced God.

Who here at TOL do you believe falls into the "creationist, not Christian" category?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Try reading. I wasn't talking about information. I was reponding to this:


The effect of lighting a match, i.e. the forest fire, is much greater than the cause. i.e. the match being lit.

Sorry, but no.

Think a bit harder. You're forgetting the potential energy of the forest.

When you light a match, and then set it down on and then drop it on a steel plate, the result is a burned match on a steel plate. The fire doesn't spread, because steel doesn't burn very well at the temperatures caused by a match, so therefore, the match burns out before it reaches the pile of wood in the forest underneath it.

When you light a match, and then use it to light the pile of wood in the forest, the wood (and thus the energy stored within it) is part of the initial equation, it doesn't appear after you put the match on the ground.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

I'm a Christian. And yes, I recognize that some Christians are creationists. But not most of us. Creationism is to creation, what legalism is to legal. The term has been taken over by those who don't accept the way He creates new taxa.

You have a point. But I doubt if anyone here is unclear on the distinction between "creationist" and "Christian."

Incorrect.

Can't think of any example here. You know of one?

As you believe God 'created' the universe, you are a creationist arguing within camp.

If you accept the idea that creationists are fine with evolution, maybe. Is that your claim?

I realize you don't care much about those accusations, but you should.

As you have seen, accusations are generally by those we should ignore. They add little to the discussion, but resentment and rancor.

You are NOT to be making your brother/sister to stumble.

We are NOT to be tossing pointless obstacles in the way of unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him. I realize creationism doesn't necessarily do that. Creationists who claim that one who accepts the fact of evolution, is not a genuine Christian are doing exactly that. And I realize you aren't one of those.

Such causes a belief, by your own work and hands, that you are not a believer.

No one could read any of these exchanges, and not realize that I am. I mention it in various ways throughout.

In fact, you believe in Christ as Savior, and that He created the universe.

Yep. The only difference between me and Christians who are creationists, is that I'm O.K. with the way He did it.

You are labeling 'Creationist' as YEC etc.

There are OE creationists, but since the SDAs spread their new doctrines into evangelicals, they are no longer the majority among Christian creationists.

Barbarian observes:
In a Venn Diagram, "Christian" and "creationist" slightly intersect. You're at that intersection. I'm not. But we're both in the "Christian" section.

This is an incorrect line in your diagram. Change it to be correct.

It's very correct. There are far more Muslims who are creationists than Christians who are creationists. Yes, I mean YE and OE creationists, who do not accept evolution.

You shouldn't be doing TOL discussion simply for entertainment

If you aren't, then neither of us is. That's not what this is for. It's not to change the minds of those who get angry and verbally abusive. It's for the onlookers, who remain open-minded.

but for actual meaning and purpose AND you need to be paying attention to Paul's writings when going through these discussions. We are responsible for all our careless or uncaring words. Do better.

Perhaps you've confused me with someone else. I haven't offered insults or deliberately baited people here. Indeed, I complimented one person who has been abusive toward me, when I thought he deserved it.

And if you'll check, on one of these two thread, I also admitted when I was wrong. Who else has done that? It's not just fair; it tends to make one more credible, if one is willing to admit a mistake.

Barbarian observes:
And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.

I can do them too.

If you know this, then we don't have a difference in that regard. Well done.

Rather, it is because there is order in the universe.

Of course. Common descent would not be possible if God had not created a universe in the way He did.

You have to realize YOU are against randomized evolution.

So was Darwin. His great discovery was that it's not random.

Why not join rather than split hairs all of the time? You believe a Creator made the universe.

As I've mentioned repeatedly in these threads. Would you consider counting my posts and showing us the percentage in which I acknowledge God? That might be instructive for both of us.

You are using "contingency" as if the universe is in any other hands but God's.

Don't see how. I, for example, cited Aquinas, who uses "contingency" the same way I do, as part of divine providence.

Contingency means 'in another's hands.'

It has various meanings in various disciplines, but:

In religion and theology, contingency often marks the fundamental difference between the Creator and creation. It is used in ontological and cosmological proofs of the existence of God in the sense that all created beings cannot account for their own existence, but—in their contingency—point to a Creator, who is not contingent, but the necessary ground of his or her own being. However, it is disputed whether such a conclusion is valid or itself contingent.
https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/...99340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-35

The difficulty is if you mean contingent "by/in God's hands" or if you mean "Can God allow another to have control over the universe and its laws?" When Thomas Aquinas uses the word, he means "By God's hand." He argues this, in context, saying that what God purposes cannot but happen, by His purpose, by His hand (contingency).

Since God, being omnipotent, can use either necessity or contingency, it's a moot point.

The problem every Christian has, in any field, especially science is he has to understand that we live in a space that is subjected to the curse AND was originally not designed that way. Romans 8:20

As God says in Genesis, the curse applies to man, not to other animals. Animals do not have to cultivate and farm to live. That's the human condition. There is no scriptural support whatever for the idea that God changed His creation to harm other animals.

Yes, you are arguing 'for' creation. "Evolutionists" wouldn't accept your view of this term by such language.

You are conflating "evolutionist" with "not a theist." That's a major error. Most scientists, the last time I checked, accept a personal God. With world-class biologists like Francis Collins being devout Christians, your assumption is unwarranted.

It is important that Christians recognize that they mean something different than the standard ideas of Darwinism and evolution and related terms.

There is nothing whatever unChristian in evolutionary theory. Only if one tries to extend it to the supernatural, is there an issue. And very few scientists are foolish enough to do so; science, by it's very methodology can't do that.

Scientists and educators, ignorant of God and His hand in the universe, state terms and give descriptions void of understanding and often against Him.

No, that's wrong. Even Richard Dawkins admits that science can't rule out God.

Below, you argue well for an ordered universe completely in God's hands.

Which is quite unscientific. And that's all right. It's O.K. to be unscientific when the issue calls for it. Science can't deal with the question of God and creation, but scientists can.

Barbarian observes:
"Random chance" wouldn't produce a directed result. And yet, this simple demonstration of order in His creation gives you an increasingly accurate estimate of pi.

Yes. Argue like this in thread. Sometimes you create a controversy simply by not being more careful.

Unfortunately, there are some here, who willfully "misunderstand" what I've written. It's not a simple subject, but it's easy enough to question a person for clarification.

Assuming that one has honest motives, that is.

You are not for random chance/chaos in creation

I accept what God says...

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Try not to be against other Christians on problem definitions

Notice I rejoice in the fact that being wrong about this, will not harm the salvation of creationists, and I acknowledge that they are Christians as much as I am. Notice also, that many creationists disparage the faith of Christians who do not accept their views.

Well, you are arguing for a purposeful creation order at that point. Mostly, the term 'evolution' comes with an autonomous tenor that you frankly, don't believe.

Don't see how. For example, Darwin, in On the Origin of Species suggested that God just created the first living things:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species 1878 Chapter XV (1878)

My contention is your comparison: It is simply a coincidence (coincides) with an ordered universe, which you too are arguing FOR.

Of course a universe with contingency can also be an ordered universe.

Thanks for your reasoned and civil post.

Edit: Chaotic systems do exhibit order, and are not the same thing as random systems.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, but no.

Think a bit harder. You're forgetting the potential energy.

When you light a match, and then set it down on and then drop it on a steel plate, the result is a burned match on a steel plate. The fire doesn't spread, because steel doesn't burn very well at the temperatures caused by a match

The fire doesn't spread because the steel conducts away the heat faster than the flame can heat steel to it's combustion temperature. Reduce the mass of the steel, and ...

 

[JudgeRightly]

The fire doesn't spread because the steel conducts away the heat faster than the flame can heat steel to it's combustion temperature. Reduce the mass of the steel, and ...

Your point?

 

[Right Divider]

Your point?

Distraction... as usual.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your point?

It's not the temperature of the match. It's that the match doesn't have the thermal energy to heat up that much steel. If you reduce the mass of the steel, it becomes quite easy to ignite it with a match.

It's why you can start a forest fire in a dry forest by igniting the match and dropping it onto dried litter, but have a very difficult time doing the same thing with a 2X4.

Temperature is the average kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance. Thermal energy is the total kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance.

 

[ok doser]

Distraction... as usual.

Another one of his trolling tactics :sigh:

 

[Right Divider]

Another one of his trolling tactics :sigh:

It's quite a common tactic with lots of the children here.

 

[Stripe]

Try reading. I wasn't talking about information. I was reponding to this:


The effect of lighting a match, i.e. the forest fire, is much greater than the cause. i.e. the match being lit.

He's talking about genetic information. :doh:

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, I've never tried it with a match. I know a butane lighter will easily burn steel wool. So I tried it out. I don't have any matches, but a burning splinter of mesquite will ingnite 00 steel wool, which then will burn without further heating.

 

[Lon]

Barbarian observes:

Yep. The only difference between me and Christians who are creationists, is that I'm O.K. with the way He did it.

The 'difference' comment can be seen as backhanded. I'm not sure there is accountability where where none is held, but I yet think you make some of this headache on TOL.

There are OE creationists, but since the SDAs spread their new doctrines into evangelicals, they are no longer the majority among Christian creationists.

This is because there are definite scripture mentions, such as 'after its kind' by implication. If you at least understand this, and the scriptural implication, I'd think you could walk a mile or two in the other's shoes. I do think there is definitely a bit of bandwaggoning and popularity peer pressure among the evolutionary and science community, which is too bad, but science needs a lot more mavericks for good science. There is plenty of room for being wrong and making mistakes. It isn't overtly overboard to question the veracity. When you go to a doctor for radiation and chemotherapy, it certainly can be argued there probably is better medicine out there.

Try to realize you imperialize science observation when it is well-able to accept the scrutiny and such is even encouraged. I get that indoctrination is a roadblock to science assumption but it isn't meaningless.

Barbarian observes:
In a Venn Diagram, "Christian" and "creationist" slightly intersect. You're at that intersection. I'm not. But we're both in the "Christian" section.



It's very correct. There are far more Muslims who are creationists than Christians who are creationists. Yes, I mean YE and OE creationists, who do not accept evolution.

And even you reject an evolution that is chaos such that many scientist-educators describe. Whatever your position, you are, in fact one who believes God created the universe and deliberately.

If you aren't, then neither of us is. That's not what this is for. It's not to change the minds of those who get angry and verbally abusive. It's for the onlookers, who remain open-minded.

Right, but you have to also talk to the audience at hand. There is no one-sided serving that can be effective. You are simply a cog in a wheel between two if you try. It is important to parse terms and discuss specific meanings because you certainly are NOT against God 'creating' and sustaining the universe.

Perhaps you've confused me with someone else. I haven't offered insults or deliberately baited people here. Indeed, I complimented one person who has been abusive toward me, when I thought he deserved it.

There are problems of omission as well as commission. I'm trying to tell you I think your missing things in these conversations and inadvertently causing rifts that are needless, often garnering those 'unbeliever' comments by not being careful enough. In essence for one example: Embracing "evolution" unqualified is often associated with Darwin's needed corrections and life simply 'happening.'

And if you'll check, on one of these two thread, I also admitted when I was wrong. Who else has done that? It's not just fair; it tends to make one more credible, if one is willing to admit a mistake.

That's great! I've corrected you a couple of times with genuine corrects and you hardly even noticed, let alone admitted. As one who has a bit of pride, I'm 1) familiar and 2) working on it as well. I do want to be correctible. Correctable.

Barbarian observes:
And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.

There is no mutation in dna that isn't already information in one or the other. A Cocker Spaniel's DNA with its characteristics is from the previous breeds. DNA from a wolf cannot change for a dog. It is the same breed. Rather different characteristics from the same DNA strands, make canine's differ. My Cocker Spaniel has virtually the same DNA as a wolf.

If you know this, then we don't have a difference in that regard. Well done.

:up:

Of course. Common descent would not be possible if God had not created a universe in the way He did.

:idunno: I don't know that. How do or could you?

So was Darwin. His great discovery was that it's not random.

Yet some of his statements and details don't agree with that. He was wrong on a good many counts.

As I've mentioned repeatedly in these threads. Would you consider counting my posts and showing us the percentage in which I acknowledge God? That might be instructive for both of us.

I'll consider it BUT it'd be a HUGE undertaking. Do you have a rough percentage estimate?

Don't see how. I, for example, cited Aquinas, who uses "contingency" the same way I do, as part of divine providence.

Contigency can mean 'possibility' or 'in another's hands' etc. I believe Aquinas meant it different than 'interference.' I'm not a fatalist, but I'm also not an adherent to anything in control of this universe but God alone (similar to your statement).

It has various meanings in various disciplines, but:

In religion and theology, contingency often marks the fundamental difference between the Creator and creation. It is used in ontological and cosmological proofs of the existence of God in the sense that all created beings cannot account for their own existence, but—in their contingency—point to a Creator, who is not contingent, but the necessary ground of his or her own being. However, it is disputed whether such a conclusion is valid or itself contingent.
https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/...99340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-35

Panentheism is different than pantheism in that it recognizes nothing exists that exist (now and past) ever, than what God sustains. "In Him and through Him, we all have our being." and other verses that express this. Contingency, unless it is the full realm of God's hand, would be different than I believe Aquinas was talking about. He didn't believe there was another 'player' in God's universe. This isn't what he meant (as far as I understand) by 'contingency.' Your quote in context carries this idea.

Since God, being omnipotent, can use either necessity or contingency, it's a moot point.

Let's go ahead and address this in some clarity: Contingency carries an 'out of God's design' tenor. Certainly sin entering our lives is not God's desire, but it was His prescription. It has some to do with freewill discussion, but Aquinas was certainly talking about nothing being out of God's hands. It is a difficult concept to introduce that something exists apart from God's desire or will. Contingency likewise becomes a difficult concept when Aquinas' theology recognizes God as sovereign and purposeful in all of creation.

As God says in Genesis, the curse applies to man, not to other animals. Animals do not have to cultivate and farm to live.

That's the human condition. There is no scriptural support whatever for the idea that God changed His creation to harm other animals.

Hmmm? Genesis 3:14 :think:

You are conflating "evolutionist" with "not a theist." That's a major error. Most scientists, the last time I checked, accept a personal God. With world-class biologists like Francis Collins being devout Christians, your assumption is unwarranted.

:nono: Rather there are a good many reasons, in all fields of men, to doubt or do better. For instance, you can learn from an auto mechanic, but that doesn't mean you can't build a better car, nor off of some better propulsion. Not so in theology. These two are not alike at that point.

There is nothing whatever unChristian in evolutionary theory.

The definition can carry undirected and unguided connotations. Such would be 'unCreator-ish.'

Only if one tries to extend it to the supernatural, is there an issue. And very few scientists are foolish enough to do so; science, by it's very methodology can't do that.

ALL of God is 'super' natural. Natural meaning pertaining to this creation. God is above His creation and we believe He created ex nihilo. Genesis 1 Hebrews 11:3

No, that's wrong. Even Richard Dawkins admits that science can't rule out God.

Er "God Delusion?" I'm pretty sure He cannot admit this. You are correct, if by this, you mean they are wrong.

Which is quite unscientific. And that's all right. It's O.K. to be unscientific when the issue calls for it. Science can't deal with the question of God and creation, but scientists can.

Barbarian observes:
"Random chance" wouldn't produce a directed result. And yet, this simple demonstration of order in His creation gives you an increasingly accurate estimate of pi.



Unfortunately, there are some here, who willfully "misunderstand" what I've written. It's not a simple subject, but it's easy enough to question a person for clarification.

Assuming that one has honest motives, that is.



I accept what God says...

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.




Notice I rejoice in the fact that being wrong about this, will not harm the salvation of creationists, and I acknowledge that they are Christians as much as I am. Notice also, that many creationists disparage the faith of Christians who do not accept their views.

:up:

Don't see how. For example, Darwin, in On the Origin of Species suggested that God just created the first living things:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species 1878 Chapter XV (1878)



Of course a universe with contingency can also be an ordered universe.

This is the difficult discussion. It kind of has a 'watch the explosion and see where the pieces lie' rather than the work of God's Word. We know from Revelation, the wolf will lie down with the lamb. The expression is given as if predators weren't meant to kill herbivores or other carnivores. We do know things by observation, but 'how' we piece these things together can easily be off. Science is open to such challenge.

Thanks for your reasoned and civil post.

Yours as well. Thank you.

Edit: Chaotic systems do exhibit order, and are not the same thing as random systems.

Well, yes, they are subject to the parameters of the universe God has made. Agree.

 

[ok doser]

...

 

[The Barbarian]

The 'difference' comment can be seen as backhanded. I'm not sure there is accountability where where none is held, but I yet think you make some of this headache on TOL.

I can only reply that I freely admit that even YE creationists who accept Jesus as Lord are no less Christian than I am, which is much better than some of them.

This is because there are definite scripture mentions, such as 'after its kind' by implication. If you at least understand this, and the scriptural implication, I'd think you could walk a mile or two in the other's shoes. I do think there is definitely a bit of bandwaggoning and popularity peer pressure among the evolutionary and science community, which is too bad, but science needs a lot more mavericks for good science.

The big rewards in science go to the mavericks who actually can show evidence for their dissent. The operative word is "evidence." I would be surprised if there wasn't a tendency to bandwagonning in any group, anywhere. The reason science has less of it, is because of evidence.

There is plenty of room for being wrong and making mistakes. It isn't overtly overboard to question the veracity. When you go to a doctor for radiation and chemotherapy, it certainly can be argued there probably is better medicine out there.

And yet, after these became commonly used, survival of cancer patients increased markedly. There's something to be said for success. This is the key to why science is well-accepted. It works.

Try to realize you imperialize science observation when it is well-able to accept the scrutiny and such is even encouraged.

Besides me, who else here has said that science is limited in what it can do, and that it's good to be unscientific in many circumstances?

I get that indoctrination is a roadblock to science assumption but it isn't meaningless.

As a member of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, why would I think so?

And even you reject an evolution that is chaos such that many scientist-educators describe.

Can you name me one of Darwin's basic claims that has turned out to be false?

Whatever your position, you are, in fact one who believes God created the universe and deliberately.

As do many millions of other Christians who acknowledge the fact of evolution.

Right, but you have to also talk to the audience at hand. There is no one-sided serving that can be effective. You are simply a cog in a wheel between two if you try. It is important to parse terms and discuss specific meanings because you certainly are NOT against God 'creating' and sustaining the universe.

I've been very careful to show what is true and demonstrable. And I've pointed out repeatedly that the fact of evolution is not something that a Christian needs to acknowledge to be saved. I've pointed out that none of it happened or could have happened without the Creator.

Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you've confused me with someone else. I haven't offered insults or deliberately baited people here. Indeed, I complimented one person who has been abusive toward me, when I thought he deserved it.

There are problems of omission as well as commission. I'm trying to tell you I think your missing things in these conversations and inadvertently causing rifts that are needless, often garnering those 'unbeliever' comments by not being careful enough.

Jesus said the world would hate us. And it does. You don't seem to, and neither to many other creationists. Ironically, SDAs tend to be much more reasonable about differences than many others who have adopted this doctrine from them.

In essence for one example: Embracing "evolution" unqualified is often associated with Darwin's needed corrections

The needed "corrections" were primarily in the area of genetics, and the significance of neutral mutations. Darwin was even cognizant of variations in pacing of evolution, which men like Mayr, Eldridge and Gould emphasized.

and life simply 'happening.'

Darwin didn't say much about life happening. He merely suggested that God created the first living things, and very little else.

(Barbarian notes that to his knowledge, he's the only one on the current evolution threads who has admitted a mistake)

That's great! I've corrected you a couple of times with genuine corrects and you hardly even noticed, let alone admitted.

I suppose that one has to actually realize that they've made a mistake to acknowledge it. Which may be why I'm the only one who has. In these two threads.

And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.

There is no mutation in dna that isn't already information in one or the other.

Not sure what you mean, but a new mutation increases information in a population. That was Shannon's discovery.

A Cocker Spaniel's DNA with its characteristics is from the previous breeds. DNA from a wolf cannot change for a dog.

But it has. There are muscles in your dog's face that don't exist in wolves. It's why he can make that face that says "I'm paying attention to you", or gives you that wide-eyed puppy expression that gets him attention.

New mutations. In fact, the evidence indicates that wolves and dogs evolved from a common ancestor that was significantly different from both. Hence, domestication of wolves is almost impossible, and dog/wolf hybrids require special training and knowledgeable owners.

It is the same breed. Rather different characteristics from the same DNA strands, make canine's differ. My Cocker Spaniel has virtually the same DNA as a wolf.

One percent difference. Which is a huge difference for animals that have diverged within (the longest estimate) 100,000 years. Humans and chimps, according to the same criteria differ by three percent for millions of years of divergence. Remember,humans, wolves and dogs (all animals) differ by only about 60 percent from a banana.

Common descent would not be possible if God had not created a universe in the way He did.

:idunno: I don't know that. How do or could you?

It's perfectly possible to imagine a world where Lamarckist evolution is possible. In fact, we see a few cases where it works in this world. If that were even slightly common, the tree of life would be very different.

Barbarian observes:
So was Darwin. His great discovery was that it's not random.

Yet some of his statements and details don't agree with that.

I haven't read everything he's written, but I've read a lot. Never read anything questioning his theory of natural selection. Time and chance happen to all, but in the end, selection means that it's not random.

He was wrong on a good many counts.

Which of his basic premises turned out to be wrong? His biggest error was accepting the notion of inheritance as like mixing paint. Which was the standard model in his time. And his agreement that acquired characteristics might be inherited.

Barbarian observes:
As I've mentioned repeatedly in these threads. Would you consider counting my posts and showing us the percentage in which I acknowledge God? That might be instructive for both of us.

I'll consider it BUT it'd be a HUGE undertaking. Do you have a rough percentage estimate?

Just use this thread. I'd expect you to find even in a thread on evolution it's very common.

Contigency can mean 'possibility' or 'in another's hands' etc. I believe Aquinas meant it different than 'interference.'

Aquinas specifically limited his statement to divine providence. So it couldn't mean "interference."

I'm not a fatalist, but I'm also not an adherent to anything in control of this universe but God alone (similar to your statement).

That's another issue. But I see no reason why God can't grant man his free will and still use contingency in nature.

There is no scriptural support whatever for the idea that God changed His creation to harm other animals.

Hmmm? Genesis 3:14 :think:

That doesn't say He did. It specifically says that humans were cursed worse than any animal. Why would a just God curse innocent animals?

Barbarian observes:
Thanks for your reasoned and civil post.

Yours as well. Thank you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Can you name me one of Darwin's basic claims that has turned out to be false?

Which claims?

Considering that almost none of C. Darwin's claims were his own ideas...

As do many millions of other Christians who acknowledge the fact of evolution.

Question begging.

I've been very careful to show what is true and demonstrable. And I've pointed out repeatedly that the fact of evolution

Question begging.

is not something that a Christian needs to acknowledge to be saved. I've pointed out that none of it happened or could have happened without the Creator.

Evolution is inherently an unguided process.

You can't have a guided unguided process. That's a contradiction.

But it has. There are muscles in your dog's face that don't exist in wolves. It's why he can make that face that says "I'm paying attention to you", or gives you that wide-eyed puppy expression that gets him attention.

New mutations. In fact, the evidence indicates that wolves and dogs evolved from a common ancestor that was significantly different from both. Hence, domestication of wolves is almost impossible, and dog/wolf hybrids require special training and knowledgeable owners.



One percent difference. Which is a huge difference for animals that have diverged within (the longest estimate) 100,000 years. Humans and chimps, according to the same criteria differ by three percent for millions of years of divergence. Remember,humans, wolves and dogs (all animals) differ by only about 60 percent from a banana.

Common descent would not be possible if God had not created a universe in the way He did.

The problem with this is that there's no new information at all, only pre-existing information being brought forth into play.

Did you know that you can read DNA in multiple different directions, and get completely different information out of it?

Think of DNA as a book that can be read front to back, back to front, upside down back to front, upside down front to back....

 

[chair]

Sorry, but no.

Think a bit harder. You're forgetting the potential energy of the forest.

When you light a match, and then set it down on and then drop it on a steel plate, the result is a burned match on a steel plate. The fire doesn't spread, because steel doesn't burn very well at the temperatures caused by a match, so therefore, the match burns out before it reaches the pile of wood in the forest underneath it.

When you light a match, and then use it to light the pile of wood in the forest, the wood (and thus the energy stored within it) is part of the initial equation, it doesn't appear after you put the match on the ground.

yes, i am quite aware of all that. I was just pointing out that effects can be larger than causes. Depending on how one defines "causes", I suppose.

Though I am not one who thinks that only academic degrees can make one knowledgeable, I would like to point out that I have several degrees in one of the hard sciences.