RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[neo-x]

And, Who, pray tell, Is examining the past Billion years ??? And Why would anyone Be speculating ten million years in the future. Flightless lizards becoming Birds ? Why not spend the time researching something Profitable.

My "speculation" based on God's Word is that 'maybe another ten million years or so' -- but probably a whole lot Sooner -- this old earth / or Young earth is going to be destroyed and God will bring the New Jerusalem down to earth for all His Children to live in with their glorified bodies. That 'way out speculation' is found in the last couple of chapters of Revelation.

And, after you've stopped laughing or having a good chuckle -- the discussion will Probably move on to more Interesting discussion. And that's okay.

The graph that's been included -- fascinating -- but how do birds or anything else survive those ice ages. With all that ice -- nothing will grow and the Cold would freeze everything.

All valid questions which I would encourage you to search answers for and don't think you know them via common sense only.

And by the way the same God designed another galaxy, our neighbour Andromeda which is heading straight towards us on a collision course and the glorious Jerusalem and new earth will be obliterated in due time. I hope that design is a part of revelations or how you see it otherwise its a very difficult thing to explain from a purposed-creation and design.

I looked that up about Andromeda -- the galaxy is heading towards our galaxy at about 250,000 mph and astronomers estimate that about 3.75 billion years from now -- the two galaxies will collide. The article continued on to suggest that the event will last for a million years or so and a new galaxy will emerge.

From the Biblical perspective -- this world Is getting worse and worse and nuclear war Could be possible. When nations go to war against nations -- there Is a grand finale of wars and then God Does intervene. We Are promised a new heaven and new earth. The old Will be destroyed. A new world Is promised.
When people are left to their own desires -- we are very capable of destroying the good. God created a perfect world for His people and He promises to renew it for those who follow Him.

Yeah probably a new galaxy may emerge. And whatever new earth we're promised will be destroyed. But would you say its intelligently designed? I wouldn't. And it flies in the face of what our understanding of revelations is.

What do you mean by a perfect world? And that also is my point, what is the purpose of renewing if there would be nothing to renew?

Edit:
To put it in a rough analogy. We were promised a train which will be renewed and continue on the track. The problem is there's another train coming on the track opposite to us. The collision is inevitable. The collision was not promised because no one ever thought that could happen.
People didn't know there were other trains as well.

So...I could explain why that is from my position. The problem is for someone who believes perfection and order in creation. Because this is not that. It's the exact opposite. Random chaos. We know it happens elsewhere in the universe and what is left is well not pretty.

Crochet, please don't think that I am belittling your faith. This is my sincere observation and thus question to people who think like you. I see no answer except a vague mystical answer like you gave up. I didn't get what you understand or hope to make sense of it.

For example on your perfect world remark. I will again say that sin or no sin death would always be on this planet. Take one small example of earthquakes. They are features of a live planet. Because of them this planet has its present life and without them nothing would be the same but that means that someone somewhere would die inevitably. That's an unescapable conclusion.And also that a planet without death atleast of our current life forms will be no planet. Death ensures fertility and other processes important for sustainability of life. Not to mention that a planet without death will not survive given that it will eventually be not enough for things that would never die but still multiply.

This is out of sequence with the present conversation -- but I wanted to respond to 'this'.

Re: a perfect world -- Genesis tells us that God Did create a perfect world for Adam and Eve. Perfect -- their relationship with God -- at least a few fruit trees available for them -- the animal world. The concept of death entered the world because Adam and Eve disobeyed God / gave in to the serpent and the punishment was physical death - Eventually. Otherwise they and everyone who descended from them would Not die. They would live forever. "The wages of sin is death" "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". Yes, physical Death Is inevitable.

Life Was 'renewed' to Noah and his family and the animal life After the flood. After the water had receded enough - dry ground to walk on - they were told to spread out and continue to multiply. Before the flood, people were living as long as 926 or so years. Nearly 1,000 yrs. After wards the life spans decreased noticeably.

The next Major renewal will be the New heaven and New earth / New Jerusalem.

Because God is the one and only Almighty God. He created This world -- gave mankind freedom of choice and we've managed to make a mess. He's provided a gift for us -- Eternal Life. But it comes when We realize that there's Nothing we can do on our Own to get that Eternal life. It comes by way of the cross of Christ. His death and bodily resurrection so that We Can live. A person's Soul exists Forever. And a gift needs to be accepted to be any good for a person.

As for the possible collision predicted for several billions of years from now --I'm not worried about that. God created and God Does have a plan for this world. He won't let anything accidentally destroy His plan.

This is exactly the mystical answer that I think is weak, to say the least. I can understand that you have hope that nothing will happen that isn't suppose to happen. But the same is true when a church falls on a body of believers or an earthquake hit etc. These are physical things andd physical laws and forces and they always behave a certain way. I can understand mystery and God's mysterious ways but what I find troubling is when we know something is going to happen and we push it into the mysterious because it may contradict what we believe or hope to believe.

The world was never perfect in the sense that there was no death. Death was always here, it had to.

I am not sure what you mean when you say physical death was inevitable, do you mean to say it was intended in God's plans or are you agreeing with me that sin or no sin, death would still be there?

I presume you are saying the former and disagreeing with me or to put it right, you are agreeing with the scriptures.

My observations and conclusions differ because I can't think of any way where death in a physical world can't exist. It flies in the in the face of intelligent design to not have death.

[Audacity]

Re: Ken and Plantinga, the former is first and foremost a YEC (who has his own religious business niche to protect ). The latter is first and foremost a long-time respected philosopher who one will often come across when exploring epistemology, cognition or philosophy of religion. He is of Christian theistic persuasion sure, but any outright evangelism likeness appears to me a far, far second to his philosophy.

I read him during studies, before the more recent popularisation of his evolutionary argument against naturalism (which I'm sure you've read in passing critiques online). His main books included ones like "Warrant and Proper Function" (1993) and "Warranted Christian Belief" (2000) all really set the foundations for his most recent works and reasoning.

Sadly, many online aren't grounded in epistemology, if they even truly understand propositional logic, set theory, formal and informal fallacies, soundness vs validity and the like (i.e., in other words they're likely not even fit to logically critique). It's a complex area (epistemology), and I'd even need to brush up now a decade after studying, before I feel I could properly re-gather my thoughts. I haven't looked into any more qualified philosophical responses to his recent arguments, or even Plantinga's more recent works where I'm sure his thoughts have been developed even further.

Those who have followed his main works over the years, I expect would understand perfectly where he is coming from in recent thoughts. Yet, many who challenge him on the Internet (which is really a free-for-all) I doubt have seriously read any of his books to do with knowledge, the role of cognition in veracity and the like, even if they have a position of what justified belief looks like. If you took a good course in philosophy, studying such areas, I'm sure you'd be presented with Plantinga as a respected peer-reviewed philosopher in his area regardless of his Christian persuasion.

I refer you to "Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews" regarding Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN).

[PaulSacramento]

Re: Ken and Plantinga, the former is first and foremost a YEC (who has his own religious business niche to protect ). The latter is first and foremost a long-time respected philosopher who one will often come across when exploring epistemology, cognition or philosophy of religion. He is of Christian theistic persuasion sure, but any outright evangelism likeness appears to me a far, far second to his philosophy.

I read him during studies, before the more recent popularisation of his evolutionary argument against naturalism (which I'm sure you've read in passing critiques online). His main books included ones like "Warrant and Proper Function" (1993) and "Warranted Christian Belief" (2000) all really set the foundations for his most recent works and reasoning.

Sadly, many online aren't grounded in epistemology, if they even truly understand propositional logic, set theory, formal and informal fallacies, soundness vs validity and the like (i.e., in other words they're likely not even fit to logically critique). It's a complex area (epistemology), and I'd even need to brush up now a decade after studying, before I feel I could properly re-gather my thoughts. I haven't looked into any more qualified philosophical responses to his recent arguments, or even Plantinga's more recent works where I'm sure his thoughts have been developed even further.

Those who have followed his main works over the years, I expect would understand perfectly where he is coming from in recent thoughts. Yet, many who challenge him on the Internet (which is really a free-for-all) I doubt have seriously read any of his books to do with knowledge, the role of cognition in veracity and the like, even if they have a position of what justified belief looks like. If you took a good course in philosophy, studying such areas, I'm sure you'd be presented with Plantinga as a respected peer-reviewed philosopher in his area regardless of his Christian persuasion.

I refer you to "Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews" regarding Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN).

Interesting review that ends up criticizing Patinga's "old argument" with the classical naturalist argument:
Naturalism may not have the answer yet, but I might in the future.

[crochet1949]

@neo-x
Churches Do come down on fellow believers -- apparently -- not lately around Here, but very possibly in some area of the world. But in the case of 'fellow believers' -- upon death they are immediately in the presence of the Lord. And, yes, earthquakes hit and bury people. Death Is part of life. Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve. BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned, there Was no death. No need for it -- because They were the 1st sinners. But the physical payment for sin is physical Death. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life Through Jesus Christ our Lord."

So -- you're referring to an event that astrologers are predicting for 3 billion years from now. I do hope you're not going to develop an ulcer being concerned about a Possible event That far in the very distant future.

I'd probably be More concerned about the drunk driver that Might hit my car on the way home from work next week. Or the tornado that Might hit my home and destroy it. We lost a mobile home to a fire when our kids were tiny. I found the fire in the ceiling, woke up my husband, we got the kids out and lost everything in the process. Stuff happens in this world.

I'd Also be More concerned about my spiritual condition. Have I made sure of my Personal salvation? If that drunk driver gets me today, where Will I spend eternity? I know where I'll 'wake up' - in heaven --just like my Mom did last week. And Not because my Mother did. But, because we have Both accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Savior.

And the guy who opened fire on the people in the church Bible study / prayer meeting. Those people welcomed that guy and he killed them. Where will He end up? Maybe in prison he'll be witnessed to -- find a Bible to read -- and he would repent of his sin and accept Christ as His Savior, too. And, then, again, maybe he Won't and end up in eternal punishment. It simply pays to be Prepared Spiritual for those surprises that 'life' gives us.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieou, it seems, is giving up on the self-evident truth that there is a kind of elastic band around 'kinds' of animals, as it is obvious that it is certainly not self-evident to many people. Instead, he's now advocating the "knock down argument" that as evolution is a random process, its progress cannot be inspired or directed.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

While I believe there is no known natural mechanism/s to add the amounts of biological code necessary for this macro/micro-evolution to work with, you are attributing words to me I never said. So, no need really for me to bother responding further as I see it. You're just having a knee-jerk reaction, it seems to me, over a sentence or two removed from their context.

Nonetheless, here are my words in their entirety once again:

Thanks, I did find it interesting. From the article, I read that the genome of the adapted lizards on the new island, is still the same i.e., "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste." This to me points to a mechanism I referred to in one of my earlier posts as a biological plasticity.

Yes, we can adapt, some species more than others, and this results in morphological changes -- yet, the plasticity is accounted for in the biology of the species. Kind of like an elastic band. It is similar to finches beaks, during drought the seeds eaten by the finches became tougher, and birds with bigger beaks able to survive and reproduce. After the drought ended, seeds returned beaks also returned back to pre-drought sizes.

In your profile signature, you have, "The thing is I find it funny when people accept micro evolution but not macro its like saying I believe in inches but not miles." This is one reason why some mechanisms [e.g., like plasticity] (for better or worse, often boxed into "microevolution") do not allow for miles. A finch remains a finch, the Italian lizard as it lizard, despite these adaptive changes. It's like they have an elastic band on them, which allows them to travel inches and not miles. Unless, there is a way to snap that rubber band and re-encode [e.g., deleterious mutations that stops a species reverting], if you will, their genome (which require other mechanisms to be brought to bare than I think those displayed with finches and these lizards).

Important note: I didn't say there was an elastic band around certain kinds of animals, rather some mechanisms do not allow for miles. Therefore, finches who appear to have exhibited this particular mechanism (plasticity) when their beaks changed during drought, did not change into a new species but reverted back to pre-drought times. Phenotype plasticity has its own limits bound by a species genotype, this requires other mechanisms to be acting in order to "snap that rubber band".

This is the last time I'll correct your misreading of what I intended. I'd appreciate if you stopped misrepresenting me. Even if you think I actually said otherwise because that's the way you read it, surely my further protests that such is not the case should be enough to put an end to it.

So then, hopefully moving on...

I find it telling that nobody saw fit to find out what Stephen Gould actually wrote, preferring to grab what they think is the basic idea from secondary sources. So here we go, from the Preface to 'Wonderful Life', itself a significant and deliberate reference to the 1946 film of similar title. 'The "pageant" of evolution as a staggeringly improbable series of events [...] utterly unpredictable and quite unrepeatable. Wind back the tape of life to the early days of the Burgess Shale, let it play again from an identical starting point, and the chance becomes vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence would grace the replay.'

Well I disagree somewhat. I suspect that a replay of the 'initial conditions' similar to those found on earth would indeed not only result in some form of life, but that, given sufficient time, self-referential intelligence would evolve. Whether we would recognise it as 'human' is highly moot, but not, necessarily, relevant.

It's good to see you do disagree, somewhat.

I will simply reiterate my previous claim against you: You don't really accept evolution theory, you can only pay lip service to certain concepts in evolutionary science given your both "Theistic" and "Evolution".

There is no way you can truly embrace the RANDOMISATION WHICH EVOLUTIONARY CONCEPTS are built around ALL THE WHILE GOD INTENDED OR PLANNED EVERYTHING TO UNFOLD LIKE IT DID. Once you bring it back to your safe space, where you combine your God beliefs with science without criticism, you'd need to start redefining things.

It may seem like nothing to Audacity, since you still allow for an evolutionary story and indeed don't try to apply your beliefs and redefine evolutionary concepts. For example, in your safe space instead of "natural selection" you would perhaps reframe it more coherently as "divine selection via nature", or instead of "random mutations" again "divinely inspired mutations" (especially those that lead sapient beings like us arising).

Yet, evolution doesn't have any direction, it just does what it does, and that might be unicellular life forever. There's no reason for it to get complex. This is clear in Gould's ideas. However, what you believe when you combine your Theism with Evolution -- you don't want to use combined terms that really describe your position, because now you're not being scientific according to how you understand such, and you probably fear the stupid glaring looks of dread people within science might make towards you like, "oh no! we've got a creationist on our hands!".

Now what's this 'methodological naturalism'? A philosophical doctrine which "holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)." This is a rather airy dismissal of several thousand years of 'scientific study', whose sole purpose was to identify the workings of the creative activity of God, and I think assumes that any consideration of God by scientists will necessarily upset the rationality upon which science is based. The axiom is that Science is rational, but God is irrational, and the two are irreconcilable. But that ignores the entire basis of early scientific endeavour, which assumed that science was rational because God was rational. Methodological Naturalism is founded upon a "self-evident truth" which turns out not to be self-evident at all. Wrong, in fact.

I think, we might find some agreement here. What we have had a discussion on, does naturally feed into Methodological Naturalism. I opened another thread here for such. Will respond to this part of your post there.

[Kurieuo]

Re: Ken and Plantinga, the former is first and foremost a YEC (who has his own religious business niche to protect ). The latter is first and foremost a long-time respected philosopher who one will often come across when exploring epistemology, cognition or philosophy of religion. He is of Christian theistic persuasion sure, but any outright evangelism likeness appears to me a far, far second to his philosophy.

I read him during studies, long before his more recent evolutionary argument against naturalism (which I'm sure you've read in passing critiques online). His main books included ones like "Warrant and Proper Function" (1993) and "Warranted Christian Belief" (2000) all really set the foundations for his most recent works and reasoning.

Sadly, many online aren't grounded in epistemology, if they even truly understand propositional logic, set theory, formal and informal fallacies, soundness vs validity and the like (i.e., in other words they're likely not even fit to logically critique). It's a complex area (epistemology), and I'd even need to brush up now a decade after studying, before I feel I could properly re-gather my thoughts. I haven't looked into any more qualified philosophical responses to his recent arguments, or even Plantinga's more recent works where I'm sure his thoughts have been developed even further.

Those who have followed his main works over the years, I expect would understand perfectly where he is coming from in recent thoughts. Yet, many who challenge him on the Internet (which is really a free-for-all) I doubt have seriously read any of his books to do with knowledge, the role of cognition in veracity and the like, even if they have a position of what justified belief looks like. If you took a good course in philosophy, studying such areas, I'm sure you'd be presented with Plantinga as a respected peer-reviewed philosopher in his area regardless of his Christian persuasion.

I refer you to "Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews" regarding Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN).

Hey, I believe I got out James Beilby's book! The title (Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism) and his name jots my memory, though it wasn't on the actual topic at the time I was writing, so would have just been parts here and there as a matter of interest. In fact, the books I read of Plantinga, while he defined an evolutionary argument against favouring our cognition was aligned to truth, I didn't really pay too much notice to it except in passing -- it was at the time irrelevant to what I was more concerned with, which is just how we can know we have truth. It wasn't until much later perhaps that it (EAAN) started becoming more popular discussion online.

As in everything philosophy, it is always an ongoing discussion. In such, both sides move closer to truth through scrutinising each other with rules. At the end of the day, people still draw their own conclusions, but hopefully they're better informed understanding strengths and weaknesses. It is good when you see two opposing sides, actually generally agree on points and different arguments (even if ultimately they might disagree) -- I found that fascinating in books -- given my only experience until then was in online discussions where generally no one agrees with each other at all cost.

[neo-x]

@neo-x
Churches Do come down on fellow believers -- apparently -- not lately around Here, but very possibly in some area of the world. But in the case of 'fellow believers' -- upon death they are immediately in the presence of the Lord. And, yes, earthquakes hit and bury people. Death Is part of life. Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve. BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned, there Was no death. No need for it -- because They were the 1st sinners. But the physical payment for sin is physical Death. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life Through Jesus Christ our Lord."

So -- you're referring to an event that astrologers are predicting for 3 billion years from now. I do hope you're not going to develop an ulcer being concerned about a Possible event That far in the very distant future.

I'd probably be More concerned about the drunk driver that Might hit my car on the way home from work next week. Or the tornado that Might hit my home and destroy it. We lost a mobile home to a fire when our kids were tiny. I found the fire in the ceiling, woke up my husband, we got the kids out and lost everything in the process. Stuff happens in this world.

I'd Also be More concerned about my spiritual condition. Have I made sure of my Personal salvation? If that drunk driver gets me today, where Will I spend eternity? I know where I'll 'wake up' - in heaven --just like my Mom did last week. And Not because my Mother did. But, because we have Both accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Savior.

And the guy who opened fire on the people in the church Bible study / prayer meeting. Those people welcomed that guy and he killed them. Where will He end up? Maybe in prison he'll be witnessed to -- find a Bible to read -- and he would repent of his sin and accept Christ as His Savior, too. And, then, again, maybe he Won't and end up in eternal punishment. It simply pays to be Prepared Spiritual for those surprises that 'life' gives us.

Sorry to know about your mom.

To you points, first of all, if there was never going to be no death unless sin happened then that is a fantasy in a physical world. And the important word here is physical.

Second, The Andromeda will collide with us and since its bigger, it will swallow the milky way. It is not a maybe, it is inevitable.

And I can make the same argument for a life in eternity. e.g Why are you concerned for your life in eternity, as it is an event that far in the future?
Time has no effect on the argument I made. For the same reasons that God doesn't stop a Tsunami, an earthquake, a fire, a landslide, a ceiling falling on you, the two world wars, the atomic bombings, blowing up of a super volcano, a super nova, a black hole, are the same reasons God won't stop the galaxies that will collide.

It is a matter of logical inconsistency that troubles me with you. But I can understand if you can't accept it or more so you can't accept that something like this won't affect the new earth etc...

[Kurieuo]

Question Hugh, would you say that God "made" animal life, even if they came out of the earth? Both forms are in Genesis, back to back. E.g., Genesis 1:24-25 reads:

• 24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

I know indirectly, it can be said God made, but I guess more if you're comfortable with ultimately God being responsible for all that was made. I'm assuming you would be. I don't have anything behind asking, was merely wondering.

Neo-X, what about you; I know you feel uncomfortable thinking that God guided, but then even back at the universes creation with everything set in motion. Would you say God "made" life and each species as such in virtue of how the universe was "ignited" by God in the very beginning?

To be honest with you, with what I have been reading lately in some research in QM, I think it could be shown with confidence in then near future that the universe could come out of nothing (and the rate of expansion we have, we'll have nothing in teh coming time), as mind-boggling as it sounds.

But to your question, I would agree that God made something which led to a universe and life. And I am not saying this just to be technically correct. It's just what I see or don't see and I don't know how else to say it.

I would love to say God designed but I don't see design at all. I don't see purposed-function. Did God made life? I think I'd be comfortable in saying God intended us. How? through really random processes.

If someone asked you, why do you believe in God, what would you present as your reasons?

When looking into our universe coming from nothing, consider whether the "nothing" defined ("nothing in space and time") really is an absolute nothing? There is an equivocation fallacy of sorts, or at worst, those like Krauss misrepresent what nothingness fundamentally means.

Accepting as a given Krauss arguments at face value, that our universe came from nothing, no prior substance, seems like science ironically aligning with Scripture. Though, I know it's not the same. Discussion can still be had over fine-tuning arguments and how our universe appears designed for consciousness and sapient life (i.e, Anthropic Cosmological Principle), which based upon your comments you don't appear to recognise or be taken by.

As for my own reflections, it seems to me that QM in fact minimally questions and maximally turns on its head what science has traditionally held to. Namely, that we are passive observers. In any case, I'm more interested in your response to my above question, although here's a video you might/might not enjoy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ie9musGEqQ

[crochet1949]

neo=x -- take a look at Exodus 14 about God's delivering the Israelites from Egyptian captivity. They had the Red Sea to cross. vs 21 -- what God directed Moses to do and the result. The dry ground they crossed. In other wards God is very capable of doing the miraculous. And since God has created the planets and galaxies which so far have Not collided. He's Also, Still capable of now and in the billions of years in the future - to protect His Children from catastrophe -- and That will include the new earth -- where His Children will be living Forever.

Psalm 46:10 "Be still and know that I am God...."

[neo-x]

neo=x -- take a look at Exodus 14 about God's delivering the Israelites from Egyptian captivity. They had the Red Sea to cross. vs 21 -- what God directed Moses to do and the result. The dry ground they crossed. In other wards God is very capable of doing the miraculous. And since God has created the planets and galaxies which so far have Not collided. He's Also, Still capable of now and in the billions of years in the future - to protect His Children from catastrophe -- and That will include the new earth -- where His Children will be living Forever.

Psalm 46:10 "Be still and know that I am God...."

First of all, galaxies collide all the time. And second if God is capable why doesn't he stop earthquake and Tsunami?

No one is saying God isn't capable. I am saying he doesn't do that anymore on sea scales (parting the seas) or cosmic ones, stars explode, galaxies collide etc.

[hughfarey]

I'm sorry if I read more than was intended into the idea of biological plasticity, and do agree that, in the absence of any mutation or mistranscription of genetic material, the 'gene-pool' of any group of interbreeding animals would not allow for such major variations from the norm as could be easily recognised as different animals.

Although this is not a useful description of what actually happens, I think the point is that it emphasises the role that mutation and mistranscription must play in producing new kinds of organisms, and directs attention to the claim that these processes are invariably destructive, and therefore cannot be considered as evolutionary diversifiers. The corollary is that without a working mechanism, the theory of evolution must be considered incomplete, or simply wrong.

Evolutionists, of course, say that the claim is unfounded. Comparisons between similar species DNA often show single specific differences which have clearly proved beneficial, and laboratory experiments demonstrate individual instances. This is a good illustration, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8. No doubt abelcainsbrother will say 'the bacteria are still bacteria', but that's not the point. The point is that the claim that mutation cannot be beneficial to an organism is disproved, and that therefore, mutation as a possible working mechanism for evolution has not been discredited.

I don't want to get too hung up on the definition of 'random'. As I explained, there is no such thing as a completely random event. All random events happen within a framework, and that framework itself may be far from random. The toss of a dice cannot result in a 7, however randomly tossed it be. The rewind of the universe to the big bang can only be researched within the context of rigid and immutable laws, and, as we have explored before, the speculation regarding the origin of these laws is more philosophical than scientific. Explorations into the randomness of evolution all happen, whether by atheists or theists, within a non-random context. If this means that evolution is therefore not truly random, then I dare say atheists would agree. What they wouldn't agree with, I guess, is that because the observed universe runs to non-random laws, that therefore it must be designed, and must have a purpose. And discussion about that, as I say, is philosophical, not scientific. Once the laws of physics are accepted, then there is no observable difference (yet!), between theistic and atheistic evolution.

[Stu]

neo=x -- take a look at Exodus 14 about God's delivering the Israelites from Egyptian captivity. They had the Red Sea to cross. vs 21 -- what God directed Moses to do and the result. The dry ground they crossed. In other wards God is very capable of doing the miraculous. And since God has created the planets and galaxies which so far have Not collided. He's Also, Still capable of now and in the billions of years in the future - to protect His Children from catastrophe -- and That will include the new earth -- where His Children will be living Forever.

Psalm 46:10 "Be still and know that I am God...."

First of all, galaxies collide all the time. And second if God is capable why doesn't he stop earthquake and Tsunami?

Because one is a global killer and would wipe out humanity, and the other is on a smaller scale.

No one is saying God isn't capable. I am saying he doesn't do that anymore on sea scales (parting the seas) or cosmic ones, stars explode, galaxies collide etc.

How do you know that He doesn't? Look at all the impact craters on the moon. How do you know that He doesn't prevent or redirect the big ones from hitting earth.

[neo-x]

neo=x -- take a look at Exodus 14 about God's delivering the Israelites from Egyptian captivity. They had the Red Sea to cross. vs 21 -- what God directed Moses to do and the result. The dry ground they crossed. In other wards God is very capable of doing the miraculous. And since God has created the planets and galaxies which so far have Not collided. He's Also, Still capable of now and in the billions of years in the future - to protect His Children from catastrophe -- and That will include the new earth -- where His Children will be living Forever.

Psalm 46:10 "Be still and know that I am God...."

First of all, galaxies collide all the time. And second if God is capable why doesn't he stop earthquake and Tsunami?

Because one is a global killer and would wipe out humanity, and the other is on a smaller scale.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

No one is saying God isn't capable. I am saying he doesn't do that anymore on sea scales (parting the seas) or cosmic ones, stars explode, galaxies collide etc.


How do you know that He doesn't? Look at all the impact craters on the moon. How do you know that He doesn't prevent or redirect the big ones from hitting earth.

Look at earth, just a few days ago one (small one) passed right close to us and found out two days in promixity to earth.

But we're not talking about meteors anymore, we're talking about a galaxy, which on average contains a hundred billion stars, many, larger than our suns and their own systems and planets and debris belts etc.

This isn't really an objection, in my opinion, Stu. I can say how do you know you will go to heaven? You will just say you believe or something along the line. But it doesn't matter what you or I think. The validity of our statements should be rooted in reality. That is what counts. We must face facts, whether we like them or not.

[Kurieuo]

I think Neo-X's timeframe for an end is rather generous. I'm sure we'll be long gone before then. Personally, I see no reason to think our world won't pass away, always have believed it, and still believe so.

Hebrew 1:10-12

• 10 And: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
  And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
  11 They will perish, but You remain;
  And they will all grow old like a garment;
  12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
  And they will be changed.
  But You are the same,
  And Your years will not fail.”

1 John 2:15-16

• 15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

Of course, many Christians and others believe otherwise. I have no bone to pick, but I have noticed a strong tendency in some to get quite defensive over their eschatology just as passionately as positions on creation.

[Stu]

neo=x -- take a look at Exodus 14 about God's delivering the Israelites from Egyptian captivity. They had the Red Sea to cross. vs 21 -- what God directed Moses to do and the result. The dry ground they crossed. In other wards God is very capable of doing the miraculous. And since God has created the planets and galaxies which so far have Not collided. He's Also, Still capable of now and in the billions of years in the future - to protect His Children from catastrophe -- and That will include the new earth -- where His Children will be living Forever.

Psalm 46:10 "Be still and know that I am God...."

First of all, galaxies collide all the time. And second if God is capable why doesn't he stop earthquake and Tsunami?

Because one is a global killer and would wipe out humanity, and the other is on a smaller scale.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

No one is saying God isn't capable. I am saying he doesn't do that anymore on sea scales (parting the seas) or cosmic ones, stars explode, galaxies collide etc.


How do you know that He doesn't? Look at all the impact craters on the moon. How do you know that He doesn't prevent or redirect the big ones from hitting earth.

Look at earth, just a few days ago one (small one) passed right close to us and found out two days in promixity to earth.

But we're not talking about meteors anymore, we're talking about a galaxy, which on average contains a hundred billion stars, many, larger than our suns and their own systems and planets and debris belts etc.

This isn't really an objection, in my opinion, Stu. I can say how do you know you will go to heaven? You will just say you believe or something along the line. But it doesn't matter what you or I think. The validity of our statements should be rooted in reality. That is what counts. We must face facts, whether we like them or not.

So what if it contains a galaxy, God created the universe He can unmake it or just prevent a collision.

In other words you don't know, and neither do I, whether God does interfere on our behalf.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

That's not what I said - it would wipe out humanity completely, there would be nothing left, His creation in His image (mankind) would be gone.

An earthquake might kill a couple people, but you take that risk if you live in an earthquake zone. As long as they know Jesus then they go to heaven.

Do you want God to micro-manage all our lives, or do you want autonomy? Do you know how many earthquakes occur around the planet everyday, must God stop all the earthquakes.

Freewill allows us to live in quake-free zones or build quake-resistant houses. Freewill would be negated if He micro-managed our lives.

Edit: I guess some of us would mind and others would not mind if God micro-managed our lives.